MT. MAINABAI Vs. YADAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the plaintiff, who lost her suit in both the Courts below. One Ramchandra Balaji was the father of the plaintiff-appellant. He died on 20th March 1912. The property in suit was owned by him. He adopted plaintiff's son, Balkrishna, who is defendant 3 in the case, but the adoption was invalid on the ground that he was the daughter's son. Prior to the adoption he executed a will dated 27th January 1910 in favour of his wife and defendants 1 and 3 and a registered deed of gift dated 8th February 1911 in favour of defendants 1 and 3, the wife having been then dead. Plaintiff claimed to succeed to the estate, in spite of the aforesaid gift and the will, by virtue of her right of inheritance as the daughter. The plaintiff thus denied the alleged will and the gift and disputed the validity thereof on several grounds. Amongst other pleas the plaintiff contended that Ramchandra was not of a sound disposing mind at the date of the gift, and that undue pressure was brought to bear upon him by defendant 1 who was in a position of active confidence towards Ramchandra so as to dominate his will.

(2.) THE Court of first instance held in favour of the validity of the gift and dismissed the suit on the additional ground that the claim for possession was barred as a claim to set aside the deed of gift was birred by limitation. The lower appellate Court held that the deed of gift was duly executed and attested and accompanied by delivery of possession, and that no undue pressure or influence was exercised upon Ramchandra by defendant 1 in connexion with the deed of gift, and that Ramchandra executed it voluntarily and with full knowledge of its contents. It also held that plaintiff's claim to set aside the deed being barred the suit for possession was also barred. Plaintiff has, therefore, come up in second appeal contesting all the findings, and also urging that the frame of issue 6 was wrong, inasmuch as it threw the onus of proof on the plaintiff rather than on the defendants, and also complaining that some of the documents were improperly rejected.

(3.) THE question of exclusion of some documentary evidence was not seriously pressed. The appeal, therefore, fails and. is dismissed with costs.