Sale deeds executed by parties lacking sound mind due to undue influence or fraud are void; the burden lies on defendants in fiduciary relationships to prove the absence of such influence.

JUDGMENT

T. Amarnath Goud, J. - Heard Mr. K. Saha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. S. Lodh, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Mr. S. Deb, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. S. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

2. This is an appeal under Section 100 of the CPC against the judgment and decree dated 11.07.2017 passed by the learned District Judge, North Tripura, Dharmanagar in Title Appeal No. 14 of 2016, whereby and whereunder, the learned District Judge, North Tripura affirmed the judgment and decree dated 05.03.2016 and 16.03.2016 respectively, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Dharmanagar, North Tripura in Title Suit No. 15 of 2014, by which the learned Civil Judge, Sr. Division decreed the suit filed by the respondent No. 1. At the time of admitting the appeal, the following substantial question of law was formulated by this Court:

"Whether the presumption as drawn by the first appellate Court can be sustained or the assumed foundations have their roots in evidence?"

3. Before starting with this appeal, it is pertinent to mention here that the present appellants are the legal heirs of the defendant-1 in the original suit filed by the mother of the defendant No. 1. But, both the parties are not alive at present. As such, the legal heirs of the defendant No. 1 filed this appeal before this Court for the reliefs as prayed for.

4. The facts that would essentially be required for appreciating the substantial questions of law may be introduced at the beginning. The factual background of the plaintiff's case, in a nutshell, is that the plaintiff Smt. Renu Bala Nath (since deceased) and her younger son Amar Ch. Nath (since deceased) were the joint owners and possessors of the A-schedule land measuring total 0.62 acre under khatian No. 1031 comprising of R.S. Plot No. 3322 of 0.45 acre, 3323/8942 of 0.12 acre and R.S. Plot No. 3398/8943 of 0.050 acre. Deceased Amar Ch. Nath who died on 16.07.2013 was the absolute owner and possessor of the schedule-B land measuring 0.25 acre under khatian No. 1335 of Mouza Panisagar. The husband of the plaintiff died 35 years ago leaving behind the plaintiff, three sons, defendant No. 1, pro-defendant No. 9 and deceased Amar Ch. Nath with one daughter defendant No. 3. Defendant No. 9 stayed separately. The plaintiff in the suit used to stay with her son Amar Ch. Nath in the schedule-B land. Amar Ch. Nath who was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia since his childhood, died on 16.07.2013. The plaintiff being poor is looked after by her elder son Bimal Ch. Nath. It is also asserted that in the year 2012 the plaintiff requested defendant No. 1( since deceased) to manage money for treatment of her ailing and insane son by mortgaging 05 satak land as his condition became worse. Thereafter, on repeated request, the defendant No. 1 gave Rs. 10,000/- to the plaintiff on condition to execute document regarding mortgage

5. It has been also pleaded that in the month of March, 2012 Amar Ch. Nath was treated in Agartala but, he was not recovered. Then after, 4/5 months later, defendant No. 1 asked the plaintiff to sign some documents while in good faith and believing her son, defendant No. 1 without any doubt put her signature as per advice and suggestion of defendant No. 1 though their contents were not read over to her. Subseq