The main legal point established in the judgment is the burden of proof on the defendants to show the fairness of the transactions and the need to prevent further alienation of the property to avoid irreparable loss or damage.

JUDGMENT

Debangsu Basak, J. - The Court: In a suit for declaration and perpetual injunction as also recovery of possession and damages, the plaintiff seeks interim protection.

2. In the suit, the plaintiff assails instrument dated March 3, 1971 as rectified on April 26, 1971, instrument dated December 14, 1973, instrument dated August 30, 2002 and the instrument dated September 25, 2017 as being vitiated by undue influence and, therefore, null and void.

3. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the plaintiff submits that, the father of the plaintiff was the owner of an immovable property. The immovable property comprises of about 38 cottahs of land. It is located at a prime part of Kolkata. The father of the plaintiff executed a deed of lease in favour of the defendant no. 1 for 62 years in respect of 30 cottahs out of 38 cottahs on March 3, 1971. Such lease was supposed to come to an end on February 28, 2033 by efflux of time. The lease rental was a paltry sum of Rs.1,000/- which was to be increased periodically. Given the location and the area of the property, the lease rental was dismal. He submits that, the lease was for 30 cottahs of land although the land comprised of 38 cottahs of land. There is no document with regard to 8 cottahs of land. However, the defendants are in occupation of the entirety of the 38 cottahs of land. He submits that, there is a deed of rectification dated April 26, 1971 executed by the father of the plaintiff. The father of the plaintiff gifted the property in favour of the plaintiff on December 18, 2000. However, there was an issue with regard to the stamp duty payable on the deed of gift. After the father of the plaintiff executed the deed of gift and presented the same for registration, the father of the plaintiff purported to execute a deed of extension of the original deed of lease for a further period of 20 years on August 30, 2002. The father of the plaintiff did not have any right to execute such deed as the right, title and interest in respect of the immovable property concerned stood vested with the plaintiff by virtue of the execution of the deed of gift dated December 18, 2000.

4. The father of the plaintiff died on August 21, 2008. Prior thereto, the mother of the plaintiff died on September 8, 2004. There were various litigations between the parents of the plaintiff and the other family members of the father of the plaintiff. Due to such litigations, the plaintiff was cut off from the family members of the larger law family. The plaintiff is of average intelligence. The defendants took advantage of the circumstances in which the plaintiff was placed in subsequent to the death of the father of the plaintiff. He submits that, the defendant no. 4 caused the plaintiff to execute a deed of sublease dated December 14, 1973.

5. Subsequent to the parents of the plaintiff being died by September, 2008 and the sister of the plaintiff dying on March 17, 2011, the defendants made representations to the plaintiff that, the plaintiff would receive a sum of Rs.7 Crores in the event the plaintiff executes documents as per the direction of the defendants. Relying upon such representation, the plaintiff executed a deed of lease dated September 25, 2017. Subsequently, the plaintiff discovered through the assistance of his nephew that the documents which the plaintiff seeks declaration as being void, were vitiated by undue influence.

6. In support of his contention that the documents are vitiated by undue influence, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the plaintiff relies upon various clauses of the deed of lease dated September 25, 2017. He submits that, out of the consideration of Rs.13 Crores the plaintiff received a sum of Rs.16,42,030/- and a sum of Rs.33,57,970/- paid towards the deficit of the stamp duty in respect of the deed of gift executed by the father of the plaintiff in favour of the plaintiff. According to him, in aggregate, the plaintiff received a sum of Rs.50 Lakhs as against the sum