RAGHUNATH BAISYA Vs. SANDHYA RANI MALLIK
LAWS(TRIP)-2021-3-12
HIGH COURT TRIPURA
Decided on March 04,2021

Raghunath Baisya Appellant
VERSUS
Sandhya Rani Mallik Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Akil Kureshi,J. - (1.) This appeal is filed by the original plaintiff. He has filed Title Suit No.51 of 2008 challenging the validity of a registered will dated 26.09.2001 made by his father. The suit was decreed by the trial Court upon which the respondent No.1 herein original defendant No.1 in whose favour all immovable properties of the deceased father of the plaintiff were bequeathed, challenged the judgment and decree of the trial Court. Appellate Court allowed the appeal, set aside the decree whereupon the plaintiff has filed this second appeal.
(2.) This appeal arises in following background: Nityananda Baishya died on 27.12.2001 leaving behind one son Raghunath Baishya and one daughter Smt. Lalita Sarkar (Baishya). His wife had predeceased him. Raghunath was married to Smt. Sandhya Rani Mallik. Lalita was also married during the lifetime of Nityananda. Nityananda had made a will on 26.09.2001 giving all his immovable properties to his daughter-in-law Smt. Sandhya Rani Mallik.
(3.) It appears that after the death of Nityananda serious disputes surfaced between Raghunath and his wife Sandhya Rani. Sandhya Rani had, therefore, filed a divorce suit which was decreed on 04.03.2008. The marriage thus stood dissolve. On or around 28.07.2008 Raghunath had filed the said Title suit in which he had joined Sandhya Rani as defendant No.1, one Dinesh Chandra Roy who according to the plaintiff had relation with his wife even when the marriage was subsisting, as defendant No.2, and Smt. Lalita Sarkar (Baishya), his sister, as defendant No.3. In the suit plaintiff had averred that at the time of his death his father was about 75 years of age and he had lost memory. Often soon after a meal he would ask to be fed again. On 27.12.2001 when the plaintiff returned home at about 8 o'clock at night, he found that the dead body of his father was lying in the courtyard. Upon inquiries he learnt that his father had collapsed and died on the road about half a kilometer away from home from where his sons had brought the body home. He also made serious allegations of extramarital relations between his wife and defendant No.2. He cited a few instances when sometime in the year 2006 the defendants No.1 and 2 were found in inappropriate position and that eventually the wife left the matrimonial home never to return. He also alleged that during the lifetime of his father also the treatment given by his wife to him was not good. He further alleged that he came to know about the existence of the will for the first time when on 02.12.2006 he received the will from one Ratan Das. On the same day he also received a registered sale deed dated 15.03.2002 from Ratan Das under which a land was purchased in the name of his wife from one Sri Umesh Chandra Roy for a consideration of Rs.20,000/-. He stated that he had paid the consideration and was the real owner, his wife was merely a Benamidar. According to him, the cause of action for filing the suit arose when for the first time he learnt about the existence of the will of his father upon receiving the same from Ratan Das on 02.12.2006. According to him, his wife in connivance with defendant No.2 had obtained the will through undue influence over his father who was old and had lost his mental faculties.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.