Back
1946 Supreme(Cal) 157
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Sm. Karunamoyee Debi - Appellant
Versus
Sm. Maya Moyi Debi & Ors. - Respondent
Decided On : 26-08-1946
Headnote:
Undue Influence - Property Partition - Transfer of Property Act, Indian Stamp Act - The court held that the deed of surrender was voidable due to undue influence exerted by the plaintiff's son, Mahadeb, on his mother, the plaintiff. The court also held that the deed of surrender did not require stamping or attestation as a deed of gift under the Indian Stamp Act, as it was not a transfer of property but a relinquishment of the widow's interest.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, a Hindu widow, executed a deed of surrender in favor of her son and nephews, relinquishing her interest in her father's estate. The plaintiff alleged that she was unduly influenced by her son, Mahadeb, who was a profligate and had previously mismanaged the estate. The defendants, including the son and nephews, argued that the deed was valid and that the plaintiff understood its contents.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiff was a purdanashin lady, meaning she was secluded and had limited knowledge of the outside world. The court also found that the plaintiff was not fully aware of the implications of the deed of surrender and that she was unduly influenced by her son. The court held that the deed of surrender was voidable and should be set aside.
Issues: The main issue was whether the deed of surrender was valid. The court also considered whether the deed required stamping and attestation as a deed of gift under the Indian Stamp Act, and whether the plaintiff was entitled to maintenance and a right of residence in her father's house.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principles of undue influence and the nature of a Hindu widow's relinquishment of her interest in her husband's estate. The court held that a transaction with a purdanashin lady must be scrutinized carefully to ensure that she understood the transaction and was not unduly influenced. The court also held that a deed of surrender by a Hindu widow is not a transfer of property but a relinquishment of her interest, and therefore does not require stamping or attestation as a deed of gift.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal and set aside the deed of surrender. The court declared the plaintiff's title to the properties left by her father, except those sold under Regulation 8 of 1819 or vested in bona fide purchasers for value without notice, jointly with her sister. The case of defendant 11 was remanded for reconsideration. The court also ordered the defendants to pay the plaintiff's costs.
JUDGMENT
1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the appellant, Karunamoyee Debi to obtain a declaration that a deed of surrender executed by her and by her sister Mayamoyee Debi, defendant 2, on 2nd Baisakh 1343 B.S., corresponding to 15 4-1936, in favour of her son Mahadeb (defendant 1) and defendants 3 to 6 the sons of defendant 2, should be set aside, and that the estate left by her father, the late Bhabadeb Chatterjee, should be partitioned between her and her sister Mayamoyee. There was an alternative prayer that if the deed of surrender could not be set aside or the estate partitioned the plaintiff might be given maintenance at the rate of Rs. 100 per month charged on all the properties left by her father. By a subsequent application, a claim for right of residence in the residential house of Bhabadeb Chatterjee at Burdwan was included in the plaint.
2. The main facts of the case are not disputed and are as follows: Bhabadeb Chatterjee, father of the plaintiff, died on 14-8-1935, leaving the plaintiff Karunamoyee and defendant 2 Mayamoyee as his only heirs under the Hindu law. Prior to his death, he executed certain documents all of which were unregistered. The first was a will of the year 1923, the second a deed of gift dated 20-7-1935 in favour of Karunamoyee, the third will dated 22-7-1935, the fourth a deed of gift dated 24-7-1935, in favour of Mayamoyee, and the fifth a deed of trust dated 6-8-1935, appointing Dr. Debendra Nath Mukherjee, the husband of Mayamoyee, and certain other gentlemen as trustees. After his death, the plaintiff applied for probate of the wills, but probate was refused of the first because some pages were missing. No effect could be given to the deeds of gift or to the deed of trust as they were not registered. After Bhabadeb's death his property was looked after by Mahadeb, the plaintiff's son, and by Dr. Debendra Nath Mukherjee, the husband of defendant 2, and later an ammuktearnama was executed by both the sisters on 22-9-1935, in favour of Mahadeb for management of the entire estate. As Karunamoyee had been ill after her father's death she went to Puri for a change sometime in October 1935, and whilst there she had certain correspondence with her sister Mayamoyee and Mayamoyee's husband, Dr. Debendra Nath Mukherjee. It transpired that Mahadeb's management of the estate wag proving unsatisfactory. Karunamoyee returned to Calcutta about 19-3-1936, and on or about 22 and March following, the ammuktearnama executed in favour of Mahadeb was cancelled. Thereafter, there was certain discussion with regard to the management of the property and eventually on 15th April 1936, Karunamoyee and Mayamoyee executed the deed of surrender, which forms the basis of this suit, whereby they surrendered the entire property left by their father in favour of their sons, defendant 1, and defendants 3 to 6 respectively. The property which was surrendered was included in a schedule and valued at Rs. 12, 718/-but there was a further provision that if any property had been omitted it would also be covered by the deed. By the surrender, Karunamoyee and Mayamoyee divested themselves of all their father's property, without any provision for maintenance. On the same day a deed of partition was executed by and between Mahadeb and defendants 3 to 6, the four sons of Mayamoyee, which purported to divide the property between them in proportion of one-fifth and four-fifths respectively. The properties which each would get were specified in schedules attached to the deed. The value of Mahadeb's share was stated to be Rs. 15,956 out of the total property which was valued at Rs. 80,115/-annas odd, the balance being the value of the property allotted to defendants 3 to 6.
3. It is the ease for the plaintiff that she signed the alleged deed of surrender without understanding or appreciating its contents, that the deed was neither read over nor explained to her and she had no independent advice in the matter. It is said that t
