Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4) It is stated that, Plaintiff and Defendant No.2 were jointly enjoying their respective portions, [hereinafter referred to as 'suit schedule property'] as the same are adjacent to each other. After sometime, 2nd Defendant and Plaintiff started to construct a house in their portions. Since Plaintiff is deaf and dumb and she has no worldly knowledge, suit schedule property was taken care of by Defendants No.1 and 2. Having taken undue advantage of Plaintiff's disability, 1st and 2nd Defendants colluded each other in order to knock off Plaintiff's portion in suit schedule property and got registered 'Hissa Patra' on 02.01.2001 without OS.NO: 5671/2014 the knowledge of Plaintiff. Thereafter, said 'Hissa Patra' was got cancelled vide Deed of Cancellation dated 18.10.2002, as Defendant No.1 objected the same.

5) It is stated that, 1st and 2nd Defendants colluded each other and got registered Partition Deed dated 18.10.2002 without the knowledge of Plaintiff, wherein, suit schedule property has been shown to be allotted to the share of 1 st Defendant and Plaintiff and Defendant No.2 have been shown to have taken a sum of Rs.10,000/- each as their share.

6) It is stated that, in the year 2001-02, Plaintiff and 2nd Defendant jointly constructed a residential house in suit schedule property. At that time, 1 st and 2nd Defendants have created said Partition Deed by playing fraud upon Plaintiff. Defendant No.1 got transferred katha of suit schedule property in his name. Defendants No.1 and 2 by OS.NO: 5671/2014 colluding each other created said Partition Deed against the interest of Plaintiff having taken undue advantage of Plaintiff's deaf and dumbness, which came to the notice of Plaintiff only in the month of April, 2014, as Defendants No.1 and 2 denied to give her share of rental income in suit schedule property. Plaintiff caused a legal notice on 05.05.2014 to both the Defendants calling upon them to part with payment of rental income derived from house property from the date of construction. On receipt of said notice, Defendants No.1 and 2 gave an untenable reply dated 13.05.2014. Hence, prays for decree.

"13. As already pointed out the materials on record clearly indicate that the Plaintif is deaf and dumb. The certificates issued by Doctors go to show that the Plaintif is sufering from congenital deafness and that she has got about 80% physical impairment on account of the same. According to the Plaintif she is aged about 72 years and she is residing at Chittor District of Andhra Pradesh. In the above circumstances, this court can presume difficulty of Plaintif in proper communicating her wishes, views and thoughts to others including her counsel. As such, this court holds that there are sufficient materials on record to hold that the Plaintif has got mental infirmity and OS.NO: 5671/2014 that she needs assistance of a guardian to represent her and to prosecute the case on her behalf."

44) Plaintiff contends that, she is deaf and dumb; she is innocent; she has no worldly knowledge; she was taken care of by her husband; by playing fraud upon her, alleged Partition Deed got registered by Defendant No.1 by showing the allotment of entire suit schedule property in his name.

45) A bare perusal of Ex.D.29, Partition Deed makes it clear that, Plaintiff and Defendants No.1 and 2 are shown to have entered into partition of suit schedule property and Defendant No.1 is shown to be allotted suit schedule property and Plaintiff and Defendant No.2 are shown to have been given cash of Rs.10,000/- each. Said OS.NO: 5671/2014 document got registered in the office of Sub- Registrar, Basavanagudi, Bengaluru. This Court by its order dated 30.10.2014 on I.A.No.1 after holding due enquiry and after relying on Ex.P.2 and Ex.P.3 and oral testimony of P.W.1 and P.W.2, has specifically held that, Plaintiff is deaf and dumb. Said order was affirmed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. She was under the care of her husband and later, she has been taken care of by her foster son, Sri.K.Shankar Reddy, who has been appointed as her guardian in this suit. In Ex.P.3, Doctor has specifically opined that, Plaintiff's deafness is congenital disability, which clearly indicates that, Plaintiff has such disability by birth. Moreover, oral evidence of Defendant No.2 establishes the fact that, Plaintiff is deaf and dumb by birth and she has no worldly knowledge. Relevant portion of cross-examination of DW.2 reads as follows :