JUDGMENT :

Akil Abdul Hamid Kureshi, J.

1. This appeal is filed by the original defendant to challenge a judgment and decree dated 03.05.2014 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), West Tripura, Agartala as confirmed by the learned Additional District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala by a judgment dated 16.06.2016.

2. Brief facts may be noted at the outset:

The respondent Smt. Namita Das is the mother of the appellant Sumit Kr. Das. She had filed Title Suit No. 64 of 2011 before the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) against the appellant for a declaration that she was the owner of the suit land and that the instrument of gift was void and be cancelled. These prayers were based on her averments in the plaint that after the death of her husband the plaintiff and the defendant lived together. Being a younger son he used to take care of the plaintiff. Subsequently, the plaintiff and the defendant shifted to a rented premise in Agartala. The plaintiff was the owner of land admeasuring .0720 acres, more particularly described in Schedule-A to the plaint (referred to as suit land) after the death of her husband. After the mother and son shifted to Agartala, the defendant son started constructing a house on the suit land. Upon completion of the house both of them shifted there. She thereafter fell ill and developed high blood pressure and heart disease sometime in the month of July, 2007. Out of love and affection she desired to bequeath 2(two) gandas of land out of the suit land to the defendant by way of a will. The defendant himself brought a deed writer who prepared the document which was signed by her and duly registered on 21.08.2007. However, the document which was prepared was one of a gift and not a will. Thus, the defendant had fraudulently got the said gift deed executed by the plaintiff. She desired to grant only 2(two) gandas of the total land and that too after her death. Instead the defendant fraudulently obtained her signature on a gift deed transferring the entire land to him during her lifetime. The plaintiff was unaware about the same. However, when she received a notice for mutation, she raised an objection on 01.12.2009, thereafter tried to resolve the issues with her son which having failed she was compelled to file the said suit.

3. The defendant filed a written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. Allegation of fraudulent execution of gift deed was denied. He contended that after his marriage the relationship with the mother and daughter-in-law was strained and, therefore, the plaintiff had taken recourse to the said litigation. He contended that the gift deed was executed by his mother with full consciousness. She was present before the office of the Sub-Registrar at the time of registration of the document. She herself had appointed the deed writer to prepare the document.

4. Plaintiff was examined as PW-1. She repeated the averments made in the plaint in her deposition in form of sworn affidavit. In the cross-examination she had admitted that the defendant was residing with her after the death of her husband. He got married in the year 2009. After about 5(five) months from the date of the marriage, they started residing separately. The defendant started misbehaving with her. She not only admitted her signature on the gift deed but also that she had visited the office of the Sub-Registrar for the purpose of registration of the document.

5. The daughter of the plaintiff i.e. the sister of the defendant was examined as PW-2. She claimed that her mother had desired to create a document of will. However, the defendant in connivance with the deed writer had prepared a gift deed and obtained the mother's signature fraudulently.

6. Defendant examined himself as DW-1. In his sworn affidavit he had made the same declaration as in the written statement. In the cross-examination, he admitted that his mother was suffering from various ailments such as high blood pressure, heart problems etc. He sta