DORAISWAMY RAJU, ARIJIT PASAYAT
Krishna Mohan Kul @ Nani Charan Kul – Appellant
Versus
Pratima Maity – Respondent
What is the burden of proof regarding fraud, misrepresentation, or undue influence in a fiduciary/confidential relationship? What is the scope for interference under Section 100 CPC when concurrent findings of fact exist but may be misdirected on question of law? What are the principles governing the execution validity of a deed of settlement where the executant is old/illiterate and in a fiduciary relationship?
JUDGMENT
Arijit Pasayat, J.-Leave granted.
2. By the impugned judgment, learned Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court held that the deed of settlement purported to have been executed by Dasu Charan Kul (hereinafter referred to as the executant ) was a void and invalid document. The fight between relatives of the executant centers round a registered deed of settlement purported to have been executed on 11.7.1970 by the executant. A suit for declaration and permanent injunction was filed by Pratima Maity, daughter of Phani Charan Kul, son of Dasarathi Kul. The suit property originally belonged to Dasarathi Kul who died in the year 1972. His Son Phani Charan Kul died in the year 1979. Averments in the plaint were to the effect that on coming to know from the office of the Block Land Reforms Officer that defendant No. 1- Krishna Mohan Kul (appellant No.1 in the present appeal) had filed a registered deed of settlement dated 11.7.1970 it was necessary to get the deed declared to be void and invalid as the same was a forged document. There was no existence of the witnesses whose names appeared in the said deed which was created to grab the property of the plaintiffs. It was in this back
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.