Back
2002 Supreme(Cal) 170
High Court Of Calcutta
NARAYAN CHANDRA SIL
KHANDU CHARAN POLLEY - Appellant
Versus
SREEMATI CHANCHALA BHUINYA - Respondent
APPELLATE DECREE 528 Of 1997
Decided On : 03/13/2002
PINAKI RANJAN MITRA, Soumitra Pal
The onus of proof lies heavily upon the other side to prove that there was no misrepresentation or any inducement when a deed is executed by an illiterate, rustic lady and grounds of misrepresentation and inducement are taken.
Headnote:
LICENCE - REVOCATION - INTERPRETATION OF DEED - ONUS OF PROOF - ILLITERATE, RUSTIC WOMAN - PROTECTION AVAILABLE - BURDEN OF PROOF LIES ON THE OTHER SIDE TO PROVE NO MISREPRESENTATION OR INDUCEMENT.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff, an illiterate, rustic woman, filed a suit for injunction and recovery of possession after evicting the licencee on revocation of licence. The Trial Court dismissed the suit, but the Lower Appellate Court reversed the decision and decreed the suit. The defendant appealed, arguing that the plaintiff was not entitled to special protection as she was a party to a partition deed and had arranged her sister's marriage.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the onus was on the defendants to prove that the deed in question was executed by the plaintiff of her own volition and without any misrepresentation, which they failed to discharge. The Court found that the plaintiff was an illiterate, rustic woman who was not given a proper explanation of the deed before she executed it. The Court also found that the defendants were licensees and that the plaintiff had revoked the licence.
Issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff was an illiterate, rustic woman entitled to special protection of law. 2. Whether the Lower Appellate Court erred in holding that the plaintiff was entitled to special protection. 3. Whether the onus was on the defendants to prove that the deed in question was executed by the plaintiff of her own volition and without any misrepresentation. 4. Whether the defendants had discharged the onus of proving that the deed was executed by the plaintiff of her own volition and without any misrepresentation. 5. Whether the plaintiff had succeeded in substantiating her claim that the defendants were licensees and that she had revoked the said licence.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the plaintiff was an illiterate, rustic woman who was entitled to special protection of law. 2. The Court held that the Lower Appellate Court did not err in holding that the plaintiff was entitled to special protection. 3. The Court held that the onus was on the defendants to prove that the deed in question was executed by the plaintiff of her own volition and without any misrepresentation. 4. The Court held that the defendants had failed to discharge the onus of proving that the deed was executed by the plaintiff of her own volition and without any misrepresentation. 5. The Court held that the plaintiff had succeeded in substantiating her claim that the defendants were licensees and that she had revoked the said licence.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed. The judgment and decree passed by the Lower Appellate Court were affirmed. The judgment and decree of dismissal of the suit passed by the Trial Court were set aside. The suit was decreed. It was declared that the deed of settlement was void and inoperative. The plaintiff was granted a decree for eviction against the defendants from the property.
( 1 ) THIS appeal has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 20-1-1997 passed by Sri S. K. Nandi, Learned Additional District Judge, 1st Court, Howrah in connection with Title Appeal No. 222 of 1993 reversing the judgment and decree dated 31-7-1993 passed by Sri S. S. Chatterjee, learned Munsif, 7th Court, Howrah in connection with Title Suit No. 19 of 1991.
( 2 ) THE suit before the Trial Court was for injunction and recovery of possession after evicting the licencee on revocation of licence. The Trial Court dismissed the suit but the Lower Appellate Court was pleased to allow the appeal and having reversed the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, decree the suit.
( 3 ) AT the time of admission of the appeal the Division Bench of this Court was pleased to pass an order that the appeal will be heard on all grounds taken in the memorandum of appeal.
( 4 ) IT is stated in the grounds of appeal that the learned Judge erroneously held that the plaintiff was an illiterate, rustic woman and is entitled to special protection of law. It is also stated that the Lower Appellate Court totally overlooked the material point to the effect that the plaintiff was a party to a partition deed in 1976 and she is not entitled to get any protection as pardanashin lady inasmuch as she had arranged the marriage of her sister and she sells fish in the market. It is also stated in the grounds of appeal that the plaintiff admitted in her evidence that the deed was explained to her to the effect that after her demise some portion of the property would devolve on the defendants in terms of deed in question, but this evidence was overlooked by the Lower Appellate Court.
( 5 ) THUS, to sum up the grounds taken in the memo of appeal by the appellant/defendant and to formulate the substantial question of law for the purpose of determination in the present appeal my enquiry will be whether the plaintiff had executed the deed in question with her full knowledge and whether the Lower Appellate Court made any perverse finding in arriving at its decision.
( 6 ) THE plaint case before the Trial Court in brief is that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit property. The plaintiff is a childless, illiterate widow and there was none to guide her in the management of her landed properties. In such situation the plaintiff sought the help of the defendant No. 1, who is the husband of the defendant No. 2. The defendant No. 2 is the sister of the plaintiff. But the defendant No. 1 suggested the plaintiff to execute a written authority in his favour to which the plaintif agreed. Thereafter as advised by one Basudeb, a friend of the defendant No. 1 working in the Registry Office that the plaintiff was required to execute a power of attorney in favour of the defendants, the plaintiff went to the Registry Office and put her thumb-impression on a deed which was never read over and explained to her. Thereafter in the month of November, 1989 the defendant started quarrel with the plaintiff and threatened her to drive away from the suit property. Then the plaintiff obtained the certified copy of the deed and came to know that the said deed was turned into a family settlement in favour of the defendants, although the plaintiff was under the impression that she had executed a power of attorney in favour of the defendants. It is the further case of the plaintiff that she permitted the defendants to use two rooms in the suit property in order to look after the suit property during the absence of the plaintiff. But, the moment the plaintiff came to know as regards the fraudulent deed, she revoked the licence and asked the defendants to quit and vacate the suit property. The defendants contested the suit before the Trial Court and denied all the material allegations made in the plaint. It is the case of the defendant the plaintiff brought her sister, the defendant No. 2 in the suit property and gave her in marriage to the def
