MT. PURNIA KURMI Vs. MANINDRA NATH MAHANTI
HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Mt. Purnia Kurmi
Manindra Nath Mahanti
Click here to view full judgement.
P.K. Goswami, J. -
(1.) THIS second appeal is preferred by the Plaintiff Mustt. Purnia Kurmi against the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge, Upper Assam Districts at Jorhat, who, on appeal, reversed the judgment and decree of the Munsiff Sibsagar decreeing the Plaintiff's suit.
(2.) BRIEFLY the prosecution case is that the Plaintiff Appellant is an old widow having no issue and there is none to help her. She pleaded that taking advantage of this, the Defendant Respondent Manindra Nath Mahanti, who helped her in her affairs, gained her love and affection and succeeded in inducing her to execute a deed of gift Ext. 1 on 17th November, 1961 in his favour conveying all her property in his favour. There was, however, another document Ext. 2 executed by the Defendant on the same day, whereby he agreed that he would maintain the Plaintiff till her death and that in case he refused to maintain her properly, then he would not be entitled to have the gifted property. The Plaintiff's case is that the Defendant sometime after execution of the deed of gift used to torture and ill -treat her and she was even ousted from the house in contravention of the terms of the agreement Ext. 2. She, therefore, had to refer the matter to the village Panchayat, but the Defendant did hot agree to abide be the decision of the panchayat. Hence she filed the present suit for revocation of the deed of gift, which she executed in favour of the Defendant Respondent, and for khas possession of the entire property by evicting the Defendant. The Defendant denied the Plaintiff's claim and contended that the Plaintiff executed the deed of gift out of her own free will and took the Defendant as her adopted son and as such the deed of gift is not liable to be revoked. The Defendant also averred that he used to maintain the Plaintiff in terms of the agreement and, therefore, this suit has been brought against him falsely without any justification. The following issues were framed by the learned Munsiff, who originally tried the suit:
1. Is there any cause of action for the suit?
2. Is the suit maintainable in the present form?
3. Is the suit bad for multifariousness?
(3.) WHETHER the Plaintiff is entitled to decree as prayed for?;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.