Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

6. A recall application was filed on behalf of one Smt. Hirauni, a daughter of Smt. Raghubar Dei, seeking to recall the order dated 07.08.1986, passed by the Consolidation Officer. The said application dated 07.08.1986, made by Smt. Hirauni, was brought on the ground that Raghubar Dei was an idiot, who did not possess a sound mental faculty to decide upon her interest. It was also alleged that Raghubar Dei had been inflicted with paralysis. She never appeared before the Court to verify the compromise or did she subscribe to it. It was alleged in paragraph 7 of the application that in order to fraudulently deprive Raghubar Dei of her property, the 3rd and 4th respondent set up an impostor in her place, who was identified as Raghubar Dei. It was the impostor who verified the compromise dated 06.02.1986, and, on that basis the order of 06.02.1986, was passed. Various other subsidiary contentions in aid of the case that the compromise was fraudulent, set out in the application, were also urged.

7. It was also pointed out on the basis of averments in paragraph 5 and 6 of the writ petition that during pendency of the case under Section 12 of the Act, an application was moved by Raghubar Dei on 26.10.1983, stating therein that she is suffering from paralysis and not in a position to contest the case. A copy of the said application is on record as Annexure 2 to this petition. It has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in response to the aforesaid application dated 26.10.1983, made on behalf of Raghubar Dei, a counter affidavit was filed by respondent No. 3, Shyam Lal, who has been described there as Shyam Lal @ Ram Lal, where in paragraph 2 he said that Smt. Raghubar Dei was an idiot and a lunatic. A copy of the said counter affidavit is on record as Annexure 3 to this writ petition. In paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit aforesaid, the factum that the application dated 26.10.1983 was made, is not denied, but it is averred that this application was not filed by Smt. Raghubar Dei. It is averred that on her behalf one Bindeshwari s/o Kamal filed this application (described as an objection).

16. The Court has considered the rival submissions. It is true that there is no evidence on record to show that Raghubar Dei, was a lunatic or idiot. There is an allegation in a certain application dated 26.10.1983, made on behalf of Raghubar Dei that she is suffering from paralysis that renders her not in a position to contest the case, but in the counter affidavit to this application on behalf of the respondent No.3, it has been averred that Raghubar Dei is an idiot and lunatic. The fact, however, remains that for the saying of anyone, including the petitioner, whose interest would be prejudicially affected, Raghubhar Dei cannot be held to be a lunatic; Raghubar Dei cannot be held to be so, unless there is some cogent evidence that has to be in the nature of some medical evidence, or evidence aliundi forthcoming in an enquiry made for the purpose by the Court. This Court cannot miss noticing the fact that during the entire course of this litigation, there appears to be a strain of allegations amongst family members of Raghubar Dei, alleging one or the other to be a lunatic. Raghubar Dei had claimed that her husband, Jagarnath was a lunatic and on her statement, an endorsement appears to have been made in the Khatauni to that effect under an order of the Assistant Consolidation Officer, apparently, also without holding enquiry into the medical status of Jagarnath. There is a presumption that a man is in possession of good sense unless by good evidence to the contrary it is established that he is insane or a lunatic, or as it is called mentally challenged. There is not an iota of evidence on record, to show anything about Raghubar Dei that she was a lunatic. There is no finding recorded in any enquiry held for the purpose by the Consolidation Officer, letting in evidence and concluding to that effect on its basis. In the absence of a clear finding after consideration of relevant evidence, Raghubar Dei could not be casually held to be a lunatic or presumed to be a lunatic, if this Court may say so.