SONI Vs. MADAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 12. 11. 82 passed by Additional District Judge No. 2, Alwar in Civil Appeal No. 82/77 whereby he allowed the appeal of the defendant Madan Lal and set aside the judgment and decree dated 4. 9. 76 passed by Munsiff, Thanagazi passed in civil suit No. 18/70.

(2.) BRIEF facts of this case are that Nathu Ram was the husband of Smt. Soni, resident of village Garhbasi Tehsil Thanagazi District Alwar. Soni was the second wife of Nathu Ram, who died in 1958 leaving behind him Soni as his sole heir and legal representative. Her house was situated very near to the house of Jagannath for management of her property. Madan Lal, father of Madan Lal, the defendant. As Soni was a widow, she used to depend on the advise of Jagannath and his father Jagannath intended to grab the property of plaintiff Soni. They hatched a conspiracy, in pursuance of which they represented to Soni that for her looking after it was essential that she adopts some one as her son. On adoption taking place, the responsibility of looking after the properties as well as that of her would be that of the adoptive son. Jagannath offered to give his own son Madan Lal in adoption to Smt. Soni. Prompted by a desire to be looked after properly, Soni, being illiterate, was persuaded by Jagannath to adopt Madan Lal, who was about 26 years of age and was married. She did not know that a married person aged about 26 years could not be taken in adoption. She became prepared to execute the necessary documents for the adoption purposes, which was represented to her by Jagannath. On 26. 05. 1969, Madan Lal, the defendant and his father Jagannath came to Alwar and got her signatures. She was so illiterate that she did not know that a written document was required before adoption and as such she signed the papers on that day. Her thumb impression was also obtained on a blank paper on that very day. She thereafter went to her brother in village Papadi where Madan Lal and Jagannath approached her and represented that some defects had crept into first document as such for the purpose of removing the defects, she would have to execute another document at Thanagazi. Making that representation, she was taken on 1. 8. 69 to Thanagazi and another document on 1-8- 69 was prepared on representation that the same was an adoption deed. After ten days, on 4. 8. 69, the defendant and his father came to her demanding possession of the properties, which had been gifted by her to Madan Lal. It was then that she felt that a fraud was played on her and documents aforesaid had been procured. She further learnt that on the two dates i. e. on 26. 5. 1969 and 1. 8. 1969, three documents had been got executed from her, two of them were the gift deeds and the other was a will. Two gift-deeds were of different properties belonging to the plaintiff. Taking advantage of her illiteracy and ignorance, the plaintiff was duped into fraud and the documents aforesaid were obtained. These documents, according to her case, were liable to be cancelled having been obtained by exercise of fraud and undue influence. Therefore, she filed the suit for that purpose and also for injunction restraining Madan Lal from interfering with her possession.

(3.) HAD Soni executed a gift willingly and voluntarily, as was the case of the defendant Madan Lal, there could be no occasion for her to execute the will on the same day. That showed that Soni was so ignorant and illiterate that she did not know the difference between the two documents and signed the same and that seeing her ignorance, she was duped into a fraud played by Madan Lal, defendant and his father for the purpose of depriving of her properties. Whatever was left after 26. 5. 69, they were got by execution of another gift-deed on 1-8-1969. There could be no purpose for her to execute the gift-deeds or the will. She was 28 years of age in 1969. It is too much to believe that any woman of that age would think of executing gift-deeds bequeathing of her properties. The allurement given to Soni was that Madan Lal would look after her and properties. Madan Lal was aged about 26 years and was married. She did not know that a married could not be adopted and adoption of such a person could not be fulfil the object of the same. HAD she ever thought of adoption, she must have done it by taking her brothers and relations into confidence. It was not a clandestine transaction which had to be hidden from all those known to her. No ceremony of adoption took place. She could be presumed to know. Even an illiterate knows as to how does an adoption take place. This was by representing to her something the facts of which could not be execution of gift deeds and will, established that she had been cheated and by exercise of undue influence on her that the documents were procured.