Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. This document was registered on 9th February 1920. Defendant 3 obtained a decree against defendant 2 in the year 1926 and attached the properties mentioned in Schedule Kha of the plaint in execution of the said decree. 8th September 1936 was fixed for the sale of these properties. On 7th September 1936, Binodamoyee raised the present suit in the Court of the Second Subordinate Judge at Hooghly for a declaration that the deed of gift dated 23rd October 1909 was a fraudulent, inoperative and void document. Her case in substance is this : She is an illiterate old pardanashin lady. She is incapable of personally managing her own properties and defendants 1 and 2 have been carrying on the management on her behalf all along. After the death of her husband defendants 1 and 2 asked her to execute an amukternama in their favour. As she had implicit faith in them she agreed to execute an amukternama. Defendants 1 and 2 got the deed of gift registered by her, representing to her that the same was an amukternama. She was not aware of the contents of the said deed of gift; it was never read over to her. She had no independent advice at the time when she executed and registered the deed of gift. She was all along under the impression that the said document was an amukternama and that her properties were being managed on the strength of that amukternama. She came to know 6f the attachment of the properties in suit on 16th Bhadra last (1st September 1936.) The suit was contested by defendant 3. Her case is as follows : Binodamoyee executed the deed of gift with full knowledge and understanding of all its contents out of her own free will and on independent advice. Binodamoyee's allegation that she executed the deed of gift under the impression that it was an amukternama is absolutely false. Ever since the execution of the deed of gift defendants 1 and 2 are in possession of the properties observed by the said deed. The trial Judge decreed the suit on 26th November 1937. He declared that the deed of gift was a fraudulent, inoperative and void document. Defendant 3 presented this appeal in this Court on 15th March 1938.

4. The first contention on behalf of the appellant is that the trial Judge was wrong in his appreciation of the facts of the case and that his decision that the deed of gift is fraudulent, inoperative and void is not borne out by the evidence on record. The value of the properties covered by the deed of gift as stated in it is about Rs. 20,000. Binodamoyee was about 62 years old at the time when the deed of gift was executed by her. She is illiterate and pardanashin. In the deed of gift there is no mention as regards the amount which she is to get for her maintenance from the donees. There cannot be any doubt that the gift was an improvident gift. She had no independent advice. The writer and the attesting witnesses to the deed of gift were not called by the appellant to prove that the document was read over or explained to her or that she understood the contents of this document. There is no satisfactory explanation as to why they were not called. The appellant examined one Upendra Nath Ghosh. This witness said that the plaintiff executed a deed of gift, but in his cross-examination he stated that he was not present at the time when this deed was executed. Binodamoyee in her evidence said that she was unaware of the contents of this document. The evidence in this case clearly shows that she had implicit confidence in defendants 1 and 2. Defendants 1 and 2 admittedly were managing the properties at the time. Plaintiff's evidence that defendants asked her to execute an amuktearnama for the management of her properties is consistent with probabilitiess. The trial Judge was, therefore, right in believing her evidence. There is no satisfactory evidence in this case to show that defendants 1 and 2 obtained possession, of the properties covered by the deed of gift on the basis of the alleged gift before the properties were attached in execution of the decree obtained by the appellant. I am, therefore, of opinion that the deed of gift is void and inoperative and that defendants 1 and 2 did not acquire any title to the properties covered by the said deed of gift.