PURNA CHANDRA CHOUDHURY Vs. SAROJINI CHOUDHURANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the defendant in a suit for a declaration that the darpatni patta granted by the plaintiff to the defendant is invalid and inoperative and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from taking possession of the property leased out by the darpatni patta. The plaintiff's case briefly stated is as follows: Jadab Chandra Chowdhuri, the plaintiff's husband, died in 1323 B.S. leaving two widows, the plaintiff and Indureka and a daughter by Indurekha who has been married to one Ghanashyam. Indu Rekha subsequently died, consequently the plaintiff became the 16 annas malik of the property left by her husband. One of the properties left by her husband is Jalkar which was acquired by the plaintiff's husband on payment of Rs. 1,000 as Nazar on an annual rental of Rs. 180. After the death of the plaintiff's husband the plaintiff and her co-wife Indurekha were in possession of all the properties left by her husband. Ghanashyam managed these properties after the death of the plaintiffs husband. After the death of Indurekha in 1332 B.S. Ghanashyam went to Gaya to perform her sradh. At that time the plaintiff was in her father's house. During the absence of Ghanashyam the defendant, who is a cousin of her late husband, proposed to the plaintiff that he should be made her Ammukhtear to realize the income from the Jalkar.

(2.) The plaintiff at first suggested that the matter should be postponed till the return of Ghanashyam as her father was insane and unfit to advise her in the matter. The defendant however told the plaintiff that the matter did not admit of any delay and that there was no harm in giving him an Ammukhtearnama as she would thereby get rents without any trouble. The plaintiff being an ignorant, illiterate pardanashin womam ultimately agreed to the proposal. The defendant thereupon brought the plaintiff to Dinajpur on the second Aghrayan and took her to the house of a stranger, produced a document previously prepared and took her thumb impression thereon. The plaintiff did not receive any consideration for the lease. The defendant then took her back to her father's village and left her at her father's house. The plaintiff's son-in-law Ghanashyam, on his return from Gaya, came to see her and the plaintiff related the whole thing to him. Thereupon he became anxious to know the nature of the document and went to the defendant and demanded to see the document. The defendant however refused to shew him the document. Thereafter Ghanashyam came to Dinajpur and took a copy of the document from the Registrar's office. The plaintiff then came to know that the defendant, in order to get the whole of her valuable property, had practised a fraud upon her and had got a darpatni lease fraudulently executed by her.

(3.) The plaintiff never agreed to settle the Jalkar in Darpatni right with the defendant at an annual rental of Rs. 200 with a selami of Rs. 425. The darpatni patta was never read over and explained to her. The plaintiff had not any opportunity of consulting her well wishers and near relations. She did not receive a single pice as Nazar for the darpatni lease. The defendant taking advantage of the ignorance and helpless condition of the plaintiff got fraudulently the darpatni lease registered by undue influence. The recitals in the patta about the plaintiff's ill- feeling with her son-in-law and about her being deprived of the income of her husband's property left by her husband were falsely made in order to secure the darpatni lease of the plaintiff's valuable property at a nominal rent. The darpatni lease is therefore absolutely void and the plaintiff is in possession of the property as before. The plaintiff is therefore entitled to get a declaration from the Court that the darpatni patta is null and void.