MULE RAM AND ORS Vs. KRISHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been directed against the judgment of two Courts below dismissing the suit of the plaintiff praying for a decree of declaration and injunction and in the alternative, decree for possession by revocation of the gift deed.

(2.) Plaintiff Sunder Singh, who died during the pendency of the suit and represented by Mule Ram and Shyam Singh, instituted the suit out of which this appeal arises on the allegations that Sunder Singh was married to one Soli Devi. Defendant Kishan Singh was the son from this marriage. He later married Nupati Devi and from that he had two sons namely Mule Ram and Shyam Singh who are the plaintiffs before the learned trial Court. It was pleaded that the plaintiff had borrowed money from the parents of his wife Nupati Devi for the purchase of land and construction of house and cowshed comprised in Khasra No. 301 and 302 measuring 7-8-0 bighas. The plaintiff and his wife Nupati Devi purchased 3-14-0 bighas of land. The share of the plaintiff comes 1-17-0 bighas. Out of this purchased land, he gifted 0-10-0 bighas to the defendant with the consent of his wife Nupati Devi. The plaintiff met with an accident and became crippled. His wife started construction of the house. When she was in the need of monetary assistance, the plaintiff asked the defendant for some assistance which was agreed by the defendant and asked the plaintiff to come to Kullu from where he would get the money from the bank and he would also treat him at the hospital at Kullu where the defendant in connivance with the marginal witnesses prepared a gift deed Ext.DW3/A telling the plaintiff that certain papers were required to be prepared for borrowing money from the bank. He also told that since this document requires registration of the Sub Registrar, therefore say 'yes' if some inquiry would be made by the officer. The true facts of the case were suppressed and in this eventuality, a gift deed was prepared instead of borrowing the money from the bank or the financial institution for treatment of the plaintiff.

(3.) The plaintiff came to know about this fact in the second week of August, 1998 when he asked the defendant to pay him the money for assistance/treatment as was assured by him but the defendant refused. At this juncture, the plaintiff, his wife and Mule Ram came to Kullu, inquired from the office of Sub Registrar and were surprised to learn that a gift deed, instead of some documents for the purpose of obtaining money, was prepared. The defendant was asked to cancel this gift deed, but he refused to do so and therefore, in these circumstances, there was no option except to seek cancellation/annulment of the gift deed. The plaintiff died before the written statement was filed.