The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to provide sufficient evidence to support claims of mental incapacity at the time of executing a gift deed, and the importance of complying with the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act and the Evidence Act in proving the validity of a gift deed.

This second appeal has been preferred by plaintiff in Title Suit No. 14/2007 of the Court of learned Munsiff No. 1, Nalbari challenging the concurrent findings of the learned courts below. The suit of the plaintiff was dismissed by the learned trial Court on 31.03.2012 and then an appeal preferred there against being Title Appeal No. 10/2012 before the learned Civil Judge at Nalbari stood dismissed on 06.04.2013. These two judgments have been assailed in the present second appeal stating that the findings of the learned trial Court as to soundness of mind of Maheswar Sarma, the donor of Ext.-1 gift deed, is perverse.

2. Late Premoda Devi as sole plaintiff instituted title Suit No. 14/2007 in the Court of learned Munsiff No. 1 at Nalbari stating that she was the first wife of Maheswar Sarma who used to live with two other women, namely, Bhabani Devi and Sabitri Devi. According to the plaintiff out of the three wives of Maheswar Sarma she alone was a legally married one and the rest two were not. Defendant No. 1 was one such illegal wife of Maheswar Sarma through whom defendants No. 2 & 3 were born. During his last stage Maheswar was grievously suffering from various illness since May, 2006 till his death. He was almost bed ridden in the last days and lost his memory. He was unable to justify what is good or what is bad and plaintiff and her son and daughter used to look after him. On 06.09.2006 the defendants No. 1, 2 and 3 came to the house of plaintiff and sought permission to take away Maheswar in their custody for few days as they were willing to take care of him at his last stage. Plaintiff permitted them to take away Maheswar Sarma at their custody but during this period the defendants No. 1, 2 & 3 conspiratorially got a gift deed executed and registered by him in respect of Schedule-B land. Maheswar Sarma died on 04.12.2006 and after his death defendants No. 1, 2 & 3 performed funeral rites separately. Thereafter it came to the notice of the plaintiff that defendants obstructed the plaintiff from peaceful possession of the respective share of the land left behind by Maheswar Sarma. They rather threatened the plaintiff to vacate the house also. This caused suspicion in the mind of the plaintiff whereupon she made enquiry and came to know that a registered gift deed was shown to have been executed by Maheswar Sarma on 21.09.2006 in favour of the defendants No. 1, 2 & 3 with respect to Schedule-B land. It is under such circumstances, the plaintiff instituted suit for declaration that plaintiff has right, title and interest to the land covered by Schedule-B and for confirmation of the possession of the plaintiff over the said land etc. The defendants No. 1 to 3 appeared and filed the joint written statement denying all the allegations labelled by the plaintiff and prayed that suit be dismissed with cost. It was specifically stated that gift of deed executed by Maheswar Sarma freely and voluntarily with a spirit view so that defendant No. 1 could maintain herself and she also accept the gift in his presence and the witnesses.

3. On such rival contention the learned trial Court framed as many as 8 issues and the same are follows:

1. Whether there is cause of action for this suit?

2. Whether the suit is properly valued?

3. Whether the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties?

4. Whether the defendant No. 1 is not legally married wife of Late Maheswar Sarma?

5. Whether the gift deed executed in favour of defendant No. 1 is liable to be cancelled?

6. Whether the plaintiff has right, title and interest over the suit land?

7. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for?

8. To what other relief/ reliefs the parties?

4. Plaintiff examined 4 witnesses in his favour and exhibited four documents. Defendants examined 4 witnesses and proved three documents in their favour.

5. Plaintiff proved the certified copy of the registered gift deed No. 1901/2006 as Ext.-1 whereas the original of the said regis