In case of a deed executed by an illiterate person, the fact that the contents of the deed were read over and explained to the executant must be proved by the person who wants to take advantage of such deeds.

BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA, J, J.

( 1 ) THE instant first appeal is at the instance of defendants No. 1, 3 and 4 and is directed against the judgment and decree dated August 30, 1990 passed by the learned Assistant District Judge, Katwa, District Burdwan in Title Suit No. 6 of 1989 decreeing the said suit in preliminary form after declaring plaintiff's 1/3rd share in the suit property and further declaring that two sale deeds viz. Exhibit-A and Exhibit-A1 were illegal, void, collusive and fictitious and that those were not binding upon plaintiff/respondent No. 1.

( 2 ) THE respondent No. 1 brought the aforesaid Title Suit No. 6 of 1989 for partition after declaring that Exhibit-A and Exhibit-A1 alleged to have been executed by Dwijapada Gorai, the father of plaintiff, defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 2 were illegal, void, collusive and fictitious and that those were not binding upon the plaintiff.

( 3 ) THE case made out by the respondent No. 1 as per amended plaint was as follows :

( 4 ) ONE Dwijapade Gorai, the father of the plaintiff, defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 2 was the absolute owner of the suit proiperty. The said Dwijapada Gorai died intestate on August 2, 1989 leaving two sons viz. plaintiff and defendant No. 1 and one daughter viz. defendant No. 2. The wife of said Dwijapada predeceased him. After the death of said Dwijapada, the plaintiff along with defendant Nos. 1 and 2 became co-sharer of the suit property. The plaintiff having demanded partition, the respondent No. 1 disclosed that their father during his life time by two sale deeds dated March 2, 1982 sold away the suit property to defendant Nos. 3 and 4 who happen to be the wife and mother-in-law respectively of the defendant No. 1. According to the plaintiff, the father of the parties was illiterate and inexperienced in the matter of dealing with property. Over and above, the father due to his old age was suffering from various ailments and was living under care of defendant No. 1. Those two deeds were prepared by the defendant No. 1 by exercising fraud, undue influence and coercion upon Dwijapada. Defendant Nos. 3 and 4 had no financial capacity to purchase the suit property. The contents of those deeds were not read over and explained to the father of the plaintiff. At the relevant point of time, the father of the plaintiff had bad eye-sight and was getting deafer due to old age. Moreover, the value of the suit property at the relevant time was not less than Rs. 24,000/ -. By virtue of those deeds defendant Nos. 3 and 4 did not acquire any right, title or possession over the suit property. Thus, the plaintiff prayed for the aforesaid relief.

( 5 ) THE aforesaid suit was contested by the appellants by filing written statement and four sets of additional written statement. It appears from the record that the original written statement was filed by defendant Nos. 1 and 3. Subsequently, the first additional written statement was filed by defendant Nos. 1, 3 and 4. Again, the second additional written statement was filed by defendant Nos. 1 and 3. Thereafter on January 19, 1990 defendant No. 4 alone filed another written statement and ultimately on July 31, 1990, a further additional written statement was filed jointly by defendant Nos. 1, 3 and 4.

( 6 ) THE long and short of the defence taken by the defendant Nos. 1, 3 and 4 in the aforesaid 0 written statement and additional written statements was as follows :

( 7 ) DWIJAPADA voluntarily made declaration of sale of the suit property as he was facing acute financial trouble and had made a plan for investment of the sale proceeds in a profitable manner. the defendant Nos. 3 and 4 agreed to purchase the suit property. The defendant No. 3 paid a sum of Rs. 8,000/- for purchase of 'ka' schedule property and defendant No. 4 paid a sum of Rupees 4,000/- for purchasing 'k 1' schedule to Dwijapada. Dwijapada duly executed and registered the said deeds on March 2, 1982 knowing fully well about the contents of those

Click Here to Read the rest of this document