RAM NARAIN MAHTO Vs. PHUL KUMARI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since notice was issued to the plaintiffs-opposite party and they have entered appearance and the main contention, not decided, may prejudice one or the other party, I propose to decide the matter finally and accordingly proceed to deliver my judgment.

(2.) The plaint and the written statement which precisely precipitate the issues are produced for the Court's perusal by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Plaintiffs opposite party have come forward with a simple case. According to them, plaintiff No. 1 was married with the defendant No. 1 in accordance with Hindu rites about 25 years ago and lived with him giving birth to a son who died. About 15 years ago defendant No. 1 married with the plaintiff No. 2 according to Hindu rites. She, however, could not give any child to the defendant No. 1. Defendant No. 1 being a simpleton, however, fell under the undue influence and pressure of defendants 2 to 4 and executed a deed of gift with respect to his interest to the extent of half with defendants 2 to 4, in their favour on 18-6-1985. Defendants 2 to 4 thereafter, taking advantage of the deed of gift removed the plaintiffs-petitioners from their shelter in the house of the defendant No. 1 and they were accordingly driven to the houses of their respective parents. Since they have no other means of livelihood and are living at the charity of their respective parents, they have instituted the suit for maintenance by the defendants. In their common written statement defendants 2 and 3 Opposite party have admitted that plaintiff No. 1 was married with the defendant No. 1 and have also not specifically disputed the fact that plaintiff No. 2 was married with the defendant No. 1, but have said that she deserted the defendant No. 1 before the execution of the deed of gift and remarried herself to one Rajendra Mandal. They have further mentioned in their written statement that the plaintiffs are not entitled to any maintenance and that the gift is valid and final and they have become absolute owner of the said property without there being any attached encumbrance including maintenance.

(3.) Their further case, however, is that the defendant No. 1 became a Sadhu and died a civil death.