TAKHTI BAI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a reference by the Revenue Board under Section 57 of the Stamp Act.

(2.) THE material facts are these. THE plaintiff Mst. Takhtibai widow of Modilal, filed a suit against the defendant Prithviraj for possession of a shop and a kotha and the goods lying therein which are alleged to have belonged to her deceased husband as his exclusive property. According to the allegations contained in the plaint, the defendant (who appears to be Modilal's brother, both being described as sons of Chaturbhuj in the plaint) was simply working at the shop as a helper and had no right or title whatsoever to the shop or the goods lying therein or the business which the deceased carried on at this shop. It was also disclosed in the plaint that Modilal died about December, 1953, and had been ill for about a year before his death. This suit was instituted on the 28th May, 1954. Along with the plaint the plaintiff produced a document dated Samwat 2009 Maha Badi 15 alleged to have been executed by the defendant Prithviraj in favour of the plaintiff's husband Modilal. This document translated in English runs as below: " To Dada Bhai Modilalji from Prithvi Raj with respectful compliments. This is to say that the total assets in the shop (details are given but these are immaterial for our present purposes) are of the value of Rs. 4680/ -. I have no right or claim to these. Nor do I have any right to the shop or the house, you may dispose of your property by will or take anybody in adoption as you like. As to the liabilities Rs. 750/- are payable to Dhayji Sarsi Bai and Rs. 500/- to Nanalal and Rs. 200/- to Prithviraj (self ). THEse will be liquidated by sale of the goods lying in the shop. I have written this out of my own free-will and with pleasure. Dated Smt. 2009 Man Badi 15. Signed by Prithviraj. " THE plaintiff also filed an application for the appointment of an interim receiver. What transpired after this is significant. Just three days after the suit was instituted on the 1st June, 1954, the defendant appeared in court and admitted the plaintiff's claim. THE only point he made in his jawabdava was that the entire assets and liabilities belonged to the plaintiff and that the defendant would have nothing to do with them, and to that the plaintiff had no objection. THE suit was accordingly decreed against the defendant on the same day i. e. , the 1st June, 1954.