Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. This is defendant's appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity, 'the Code') challenging the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below holding that the plaintiff-respondent Sona Devi is daughter of deceased Jagan whose estate is the subject matter of dispute in this case. It has further been found she was the only legal heir and would have inherited the property of deceased Jagan had he not suffered the judgment and decree dated 18.11.2005. The learned trial Court recorded the finding that the family settlement between deceased Jagan and the defendant-appellant was arrived at to deprive the plaintiff-respondent from her rights in the suit property because it would have fallen to the share of the plaintiff-respondent being the sole legal heir after the death of Jagan. The learned trial Court further held that a Hindu male cannot alienate the suit property by executing a Will or by any other means like suffering a decree. It has further been found that the decree suffered by deceased Jagan did not disclose the existence of any dispute, right or love and affection between Jagan and the defendant-appellant. It is appropriate to mention that the defendant-appellant is the son of Jagan's brother. The learned trial Court has also recorded by referring to para 3 of the plaint filed in the suit, which was the basis of the collusive decree dated 18.11.1995 that there was not even a whisper about love and affection of the services rendered by the defendant-appellant or the fact that Smt. Sona Devi daughter of deceased Jagan is alive. The contradictory stand taken by the defendant-appellant, which resulted into passing of collusive decree on 18.11.1995 and the written statement filed in the instant suit has also been highlighted by the learned trial Court. It was concluded that the judgment and decree dated 18.11.1995 is based on mis-representation made by the parties and with the object of depriving the plaintiff-respondent from her right to inherit the property of her father. The trial Court did not seriously consider the question as to whether the unsigned judgment of the Presiding Officer or the statements made by deceased Jagan, father of the plaintiff-respondent, would have any bearing. However, the learned trial Court has further found that the judgment and decree dated 18.11.1995 require registration under Section 17(2) of the Registration Act, 1908, and placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Bhoop Singh v. Ram Singh Major .