MOHAN SINGH Vs. ISHWARI SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -One Deodhari Singh filed a suit in the court of the Additional Munsif, Aurangabad, for a declaration that the deed of gift dated 22nd May, 1962 purported to have executed by him was the result of fraud and, as such, was illegal and that it remained inoperative. The suit was decreed by the trial court. An appeal was thereafter filed by the defendant. While the appeal was pending, the plaintiff Deodhari Singh died and he was substituted by the present appellants, who were his nearest agnatic relations. The appeal was allowed and the suit was dismissed by the First Additional District Judge, Gaya. Thereafter, this second appeal has been filed in this Court.

(2.) The plaintiff's case was that he was old and illiterate. He had no brother or sister and, therefore, no nephew or niece, Bhagina or Bhagini and his nearest agnatic relations are the present appellants. Further his case was that he went to Aurangabad to execute a sale-deed on 22nd May, 1962 in favour of one Jabis Kuer, widow of Sukhuram. Nathuni Singh and Kali Singh of his village accompanied him. It is said thal the defendant respondents are the Bhaginas of Kali Singh and close relations of Nathuni Singh, The case of the plaintiff further was that the aforesaid Nathuni Singh and Kali Singh induced the plaintiff to execute a deed of will in favour of the defendants. A deed of will therefore, was scribed and under the influence of the aforesaid two persons, it was executed by the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff's case, he did not get the deed read over and thinking it to be a deed of will put his thumb-impression on the same which was duly registered. The plaintiff further alleged that the Karamchari of his Elaka told him on 15.8.1964 that a mutation petition had been filed by the defendants before the Anchal Adhikari, Nabinagar. Enquiries in that regard were thereafter made by the plaintiff and it then transpired that the defendants on the basis of a deed of gift purported to have been executed by the plaintiff on 22nd May, 1962. With respect to the suit land had filed an application for mutation. It was only then, according to the plaintiff, that he came to know of the fraud practised upon him. It is said that the recital in the deed was falsely made and the plaintiff had no mind or intention to make any gift of his properties to the defendants at any time. It was also alleged that the defendants did not come in actual possession of the properties mentioned in the deed and that the same was still in possession of the plaintiff.

(3.) A written statement was filed. It was, inter alia, stated in that written statement that the defendants were the sister's sons of the plaintiff and that the plaintiff had developed love and affection for him. He lived with the plaintiff and the plaintiff after fully understanding the contents of the deed executed in favour of the defendants on 22.5.1962 and registered it on the same day. It was also said that the father of these defendants accepted the gift on their behalf as they were minors and that these defendants came in possession of the disputed properties as donees. It was also said that Mohan Singh or his brothers, namely, the appellants were not at all related to the plaintiff The fact that Deodhari Singh had become old was not disputed but it was said that he was in his full sense and could understand the affairs and he executed the deed of gift after fully understanding the contents thereof which were read over to him and thereafter handed over the registration receipt to Debi Singh, uncle of the defendants. It was further said that the mutation petition was filed in due course to the knowledge of the plaintiff. Allegations were also made that since after the execution of the deed of gift the plaintiff was won over by the present appellants, who induced him to file this suit.