MOHAMMED BUX Vs. BASHIR MOHAMMED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BASHIR Mohammed filed a suit on 1 -2 -60 pleading inter alia that he is the only son of defendant No.1 and defendant No. 2 Mst. Jenab, his step mother. The plaintiff and the defendants were always living in the suit house No. 3/267 (old) and 9/84 (new) situated in Ladpura (Kota). The defendant No. 1 is jobless and so the plaintiff has been feeding him. On 17 -1 -59 the defendant No. 1 gifted the above suit house to the plaintiff vide a registered gift deed and handedover the proprietory possession of this house to the plaintiff. The plaintiff is in possession of the above said house since then. The boundaries of the house have been mentioned in para 3 of the plaint and they are not in dispute. One Mohammed Hamid Khan was a tenant of a part of this house at the time of the gift for Rs. 15/ - per month. As soon as the gift was executed the defendant No. 1 told the tenant that he has gifted the property to the plaintiff and has put him in properitory and in actual possession of it and so Shri Mohammed Hamid should pay rent to the plaintiff and execute a rent deed in his favour. The tenant has, therefore, been paying rent since the time the gift deed was executed. After execution of the gift deed, the plaintiff remained in the suit house for some time and then he went to Delhi. After that time he has been coming and going from Delhi to Kota and back. The tenant has repaired the suit house on behalf of the plaintiff and under the orders of the plaintiff. The plaintiff also fixed doors and windows in suit house as its owner. The defendant No. 2 pressurised the defendant No. 1 and under that pressure the defendant No. 1 executed one more gift deed of the same house in favour of the defendant 2 on 6 -1 -60 and got it registered. This gift deed dated 6 -1 -60 is illegal, unauthorised, null and void and ineffective so far as the plaintiff is concerned. The plaintiff has prayed for such a declaration and for cancellation of this gift deed.

(2.) THE defendants filed their written statements on 22 -3 -60.Later on,on the death of Mst. Jenab Mohammed Bux, Mst. Sakina and Mst. Chhuttoo were added as parties. Mohd. Bux and Mst. Sakina filed a joint written statement, whereas Mst. Chhuttoo filed another written statement. Mst. Chhuttoo admitted the averments contained in the plaint whereas the other defendants alleged that no possession of the gifted house was ever handed over to the plaintiff. The defendant No. 1 was in possession of the suit house till it was gifed in favour of Mst. Jenab and nor Mst. Jenab is in possession of the suit house. The plaintiff got this document executed by fraud alleging that after the death of the defendant No. l Mst. Chhuttoo, who is the plaintiff's sister, may not create trouble. This document was executed by the defendant No. 1 as a will. The defendant has always been living in these premises. The plaintiff has never been living in these premises, Actually he has been residing at Delhi. The plaintiff, therefore, should file a suit for possession of the suit house, if he feels that the gift deed is valid.

(3.) ON the above pleadings of the parties the trial court framed six issues and after recording evidence and hearing arguments decreed the suit. The first appellate Court has confirmed the judgment of the trial Court. Therefore Mohammed Bux defendant 1 has come in second appeal to this Court.