SHINGHAL, J.—This second appeal of the defendant is directed against the appellate judgment and decree of District Judge, Pratabgarh, dated August 11,1666 in a suit for specific performance of a contract for the sale of immoveable property situated in Pratabgarh.

2. Pherozshah Fardoonji, the husband of the defendant Smt. Dhanbai admittedly died on December 23, 1956 leaving the defendant and their daughter Smt. Zarbai as bis heirs. It seems that he owned plots Nos. 450 and 451, including a petrol godown, in Pratabgarh. Plaintiff Pherozshah is also a resident of Pratabgarh On December 23, 1958, on the second anniversary of the death of the defendants husband, there was a contract between the plaintiff and "Perozshah Rustamji & Sons" for the sale of the suit land for Rs. 3,501/- in terms of document Ex. 1 executed by the defendant. The defendant received an advance payment of Rs. 101/-frorn the plaintiff and specifically stated in Ex. 1 that she would get the sale deed registered within two days. She further stated that she and her children will have no objection to the sale and that if any objection was raised, she herself would be personally responsible to her children. Then it was stated that "from today onwards the right, title and interest in property will pass in you that is Ferozshah Rustamji & Son." The document was written by Shri Basant Lal Jain P.W. 4, who was a local advocate. The plaintiff raised the present suit on October 18, 1960, alleging that the defendant put him in possession of the suit property, and that he stopped paying the rent to her but that she did not execute the sale deed within the stipulated period of two days. The plaintiff stated in paragraph 2 of the plaint that inspite of his reminder and demand, the sale deed was not executed and that, on the other hand, the defendant gave him a notice on February 3, 1959 refusing to do so. He sent a reply to that notice on February 7, 1959, informing the defendant that if she would not atonce execute the sale deed after registering it and take Rs. 3,400/- from him, proper action would be taken against her. February 8. 1959, was stated to be the date on which the cause of action for the suit arose to the plaintiff. It was further stated in the plaint that Smt. Zarbai T. Marfatia, the daughter of the defendant, filed a suit for cancellation of document Ex. 1, but it was dismissed on August 18, 1960. Thereafter the plaintiff instituted the present suit claiming that he was entitled to get the sale deed executed and registered on payment of Rs. 3,400/-. He prayed for a decree for the execution of the sale deed and for the payment of Rs. 3,400/- to the defendant. He also prayed for a declaration that he was in possession of the suit property as its owner, and that the defendant had no right to interfere with it.

3. The defendant filed a written statement stating that she was not the only owner of the suit property and that her daughter Smt. Zarbai T. Marfatia was a co-owner. She contended that letters of administration or any other certificate had not been obtained in respect of the property under the Indian Succession Act and that it was therefore a point for consideration as to who were its owners. The defendant admitted the execution of document Ex 1, but pleaded that it was executed in favour of Ferozshah Rustam, & Son, and that it was obtained from her by undue influence because she was a widow and was overwhelmed with grief on the date of execution of the document as it happened to be the second anniversary of her husbands death. According to her, she could not obtain independent opinion about the execution of Ex. 1 and the document was obtained by misrepresentation and coercion even though the property was worth at least Rs. 10,000/- at that time. She pleaded that when she refused to accept Rs. 101/-, the plaintiff threw it without her consent and went away. She then consulted her relations, sought advice from others and gave notice Ex. 2 to the plaintiff. Th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document