MOSTT.GHAMIA Vs. MOSTT.TIPRI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal at the instance of the appellant is directed against the judgment dated 15.6.1990 and decree dated 25.6.1990, passed in Title Appeal No. 95 of 1988/6 of 1989 whereby and whereunder learned Additional District. Judge IVth, Giridih dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment dated 28.6.1988 and decree 8.7.1988, passed by learned Additional Munsif IVth, Giridih in Title Suit No. 75 of 1987.

(2.) THE plaintiff had filed the suit being Title Suit No. 75 of 1987 for declaration of title and confirmation of possession and in the alternative for recovery of possession in case plaintiff is found to have been dispossessed from the suit land and the learned Court of Additional Munsif IVth, Giridih framed the issues on the pleadings of the parties and after recording evidences both oral and documentary decided the issue and dismissed the suit. As against dismissed of the suit by judgment dated 28.6.1988 and decree 8.7.1988 the plaintiff preferred Title Appeal being Title Appeal No. 95 of 1988/6 of 1989 and in the title appeal also the appellate Court after hearing the parties and discussing the evidences affirmed the judgment of the learned Additional Munsif IVth, Giridih and being aggrieved by the finding of the Title Appeal affirming the judgment and decree of the learned Additional Munsif IVth, the appellant/plaintiff has preferred the second appeal herein two substantial questions of law were framed : - -

(3.) IT was further submitted that in case where any document is to be executed by any illiterate lady, then law provides some protection to the execution of deed by such illiterate lady in view of the fact that she may not be the victim of fraud or anything else and, therefore, some precaution should be observed in such a case. It was further submitted that from evidence brought on record, the trial Court as well as the lower appellate Court did not consider the evidence in that light and, therefore, the Courts below have committed an error of law and dismissed the suit, as both the Courts should have taken into consideration the evidence so given by the plaintiff appearing as PW 5 that she did not receive consideration amount and further that she did not sign the Chirkut, etc. and nothing was done without bringing to her notice and since she is illiterate lady, she could not know about the contents of the documents.