Arijit Pasayat, J. - (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) By the impugned judgment, learned single Judge of the Calcutta High Court held that the deed of settlement purported to have been executed by Dasu Charan Kul (hereinafter referred to as the executant) was a void and invalid document. The fight between relatives of the executant centers round a registered deed of settlement purported to have been executed on 11-7-1970 by the executant. A suit for declaration and permanent injunction was filed by Pratima Maity, daughter of Phani Charan Kul, son of Dasarathi Kul. The suit property originally belonged to Dasarathi Kul who died in the year 1972. His Son Phani Charan Kul died in the year 1979. Averments in the plaint were to the effect that on coming to know from the office of the Block Land Reforms Officer that defendant No. 1 Krishna Mohan Kul (appellant No. 1 in the present appeal) had filed a registered deed of settlement dated 11-7-1970, it was necessary to get the deed declared to be void and invalid as the same was a forged document. There was no existence of the witnesses whose names appeared in the said deed which was created to grab the property of the plaintiffs. It was in this background alleged that the deed of settlement was created by Krishna Mohan Kul (defendant No. 1) with oblique motive. The contesting defendants took the stand by filing written statements that the deed was perfectly in order and no illegality was attached thereto.
(3.) Before the trial Court several witnesses were examined to contend that the executant was more than 100 years of age at the time of alleged execution of the deed in question. He was paralytic and his mental and physical condition were not in order. He was practically bed ridden with paralysis and though his left thumb impression was stated to be affixed on the document, there was no witness who could substantiate that in fact he had put his thumb impression. That being the position, the deed was to be declared as void and invalid. The contesting defendants took a stand that it was not as if executant was not in a fit condition, physically or mentally, at the time of execution of the deed. The trial Court disbelieved the plea of plaintiffs and dismissed the suit.;