Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Similar was the fate before the first Appellate Court. On being approached by the plantiffs the following questions were framed by the High Court in the Second Appeal :

"Whether the deed of settlement executed by the predecessor-in-interest of the parties is valid in law". In fact, such substantial question of law should also embrace the question as to whether the judgments of the courts below are perverse in appreciating the said deed of settlement."

High Court took the view that the approach of both the trial Court and the first Appellate Court was erroneous. The following factual aspects were considered relevant. Plaintiffs produced certified copy of the deed, while defendants produced the original one. It was a deed of settlement where Dasu Charan Kul was described as the donor, and curiously the donor and two others namely Nani Charan Kul and his minor son Jagdish Kul. The L.T.I, was identified by one Hriday Krishna Das. The deed was typed by one N.R. Dutta and in the column meant for the names of witnesses, names of scribe Hriday Krishna Das along with two others namely Nantu Bihari Ray and P.K. Maity appeared. In the deed of settlement donor indicated his age to be 106 years. It was also indicated that he was becoming lackluster due to old age and various ailments and for other mental shocks. According to High Court, courts below wrongly placed the onus on the plaintiffs to prove the validity of the deed of settlement. It was observed that the first Appellate Court dealt with the matter in a very slip shod manner even coming to a conclusion that age of the executant was not proved. It was pointed out that the deed in question indicates that the executant was 106 years old at the time of execution. None of the witnesses of the deed in question was examined to prove the deed of settlement and not even the person who had identified the L.T.I, of the executant. The High Court came to hold that executant was an illiterate person, was not in proper physical and mental state and, therefore, the deed of settlement and trust dated 11.7.1970 was void and invalid. The defendatns were injuncted permanently from disturbing the possession of the plaintiffs in the suit property.