Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.29 seconds)
Documents citing Bhikary Ram And Anr. vs S. Hedait Mohammad Sahaji And Anr. on 26 November, 1957

Narayan Mishra And Ors. vs Champa Dibya (Dead) And Ors. on 2 September, 1985

11. Much advantage is sought to be taken of the fact that Champa had admitted before the Sub-Registrar about the execution of the documents stating that the contents were correct. The fact, however, remains that she was then under the care of appellant 2 who had represented to her that she was executing a power-of-attorney in his favour so that he would look after the properties. As held by this Court in (1958) 24 Cut LT 157 : (AIR 1958 Orissa 62) Bhikary Ram v. S. Hedait Mohammad Sahaji, merely because a lady says when questioned by the Sub-Registrar that the document is all right, it does not follow that she understood the terms of the same. Although Champa did make a statement before the Sub-Registrar that the documents were all right, immediately having come to know that fraud had been committed, she did raise words of protest, as would be clear from the evidence, 11A. The evidence of D.Ws. 1, 2 and 4 with regard-to the circumstances in which the deeds had been executed was discrepant, as rightly noticed by the learned Subordinate Judge in para 6 of the judgment. Appellant 3 deposing as D.W. 4 had testified that D.W. 3 had prepared a draft which was referred to by the scribe Padmanav when he prepared Ex.A(1), but D.W. 3 had not spoken about it and D.Ws. 2 and 3 had not testified in their evidence that Champa had understood the contents of the deeds. It would be seen from the evidence that the father of defendant 4, having realised that the deed of gift in favour of his son was the outcome of fraud and had not been acted upon, had returned the deed of gift to Champa, Ext. 1 had come from the custody of Champa. Defendant 5 did not even come forward to support the execution of the sale deed in his favour and chose to remain ex parte. Nor the reasons recorded in the body of the judgment, the learned trial Judge has found that the contents of none of the deeds had been read over and explained to Champa and that she was not aware of the true nature of the transactions. The scribe of Ex.A(1) was dead and the scribes of Ex. 1 and the sale deed had been examined by the defendant. D. W. 2 had gone to the length of deposing that Champa read the documents herself, but this had not been deposed to either by D, W. 3 or D. W. 4 (appellant 2).
Orissa High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 13 - Full Document
1