IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that a widow with absolute rights under a will can validly sell property, and allegations of coercion must be substantiated with evidence.

JUDGMENT :

SUGATO MAJUMDAR, J.

1. This is a suit for cancellation of instrument, permanent injunction along with other reliefs.

2. The plaint case may be summarized as follows:

(a) One Subol Chandra Saha, since deceased, left for heavenly abode on 24/02/1981, leaving behind him his widow Sonamoni Saha, two sons Ashoke Saha and Amal Saha and two grandsons Aninda Saha and Amiyo Gopal Saha, through his elder son Ashoke Saha. Aninda Saha and Amiya Gopal Saha were original Plaintiff no. 1 and 2 respectively. Sonamoni Saha, Amal Saha, Ashoke Saha and one Ashoka Biswas are the original Defendant no. 1, 2, 3 and 4 respectively.

(b) Prior to death, the said Subol Chandra Saha executed his last will and testament on 17/12/1980. In terms of the said will, properties were bequeathed and devised in the following manner:

(i) Premises No. 13, Mondal Street, Kolkata (suit premises herein): Life interest was created in favour of Sonamoni Saha, the original Defendant No. 1 with right of residence of his elder son Ashoke Saha being the original Defendant No. 3 along with his family and two sons who were the original plaintiffs. The original Defendant No. 1 Sonamoni Saha was not given any right to sell, encumber or dispose of the said property.

(ii) Premises No. 22, Mondal Street, Kolkata was devised and/or bequeathed in favour of Amal Saha, the original Defendant No. 2, the younger son of the said testator.

(c) Probate of the aforesaid last will and testament of Subol Chandra Saha, since deceased, was granted by this Court in exercise of testamentary jurisdiction. Amal Saha, the original Defendant No. 2 was appointed as Executor.

(d) In the second week of December, 1995, the original Defendant No. 2, who, by then had shifted to the premises no,13 Mondal Street, came to the premises no. 22 Mondal Street along with some of the common relatives and asserted that the said property namely 13, Mondal Street had been sold by the original Defendant No. 1, Sonamoni Saha, and the said persons were entitled to take possession of the premises no. 13, Mondal Street.

(e) The original Plaintiffs filed a suit, on advice, in the Court of City Civil at Calcutta but was not proceeded with subsequently. A complaint was also lodged in the local police station and an order under section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was obtained by the original plaintiffs.

(f) Subsequently, the original plaintiffs obtained certified copy of the deed of sale dated 15/12/1995, by and under which the premises no. 13 Mondal Street was sold, conveyed and transferred by the original Defendant No. 1 Sonamoni Saha to the original Defendant No. 4, Ashoka Biswas.

(g) Relationship between the original Defendant No. 2 and the original Plaintiffs on the one hand and the original Defendant No. 2 and the others on the other hand, were very strained. The original plaintiffs believed that the deed of sale in respect of the premises no. 13, Mondal Street was executed by the original Defendant No. 1 under coercion and undue influence of the original Defendant No. 2.

(h) The original Defendant No. 1 only had life interest in the premises no. 13, Mondal Street without any power to sell the same. As such the deed of sale, dated 15/12/1995 is null and void.

(i) The original Defendant No. 1, 2 and 4 were about to invade the rights of the original plaintiffs in peaceful enjoyment of the property, thereby causing serious injury to them.

(j) On being constrained, in circumstances, the original plaintiffs instituted the suit praying for decree for deliver up and/or cancellation of the deed of sale dated 15/12/1995; decree foe permanent injunction restraining the original Defendant No. 1, 2 and 4 and each of them from dealing with and/or disposing and/or alienating and/or encumbering the property located at 13, Mondal Street, Kolkata along with other prayers.

3. The original Defendant No. 2 filed written statement in the suit. Contentions in the said written statement are that the original Defendant No. 1, Sonamoni Saha