J.N.Hore, J. - (1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, First Court, Midnapore dated 23.8.68 in Title Appeal No. 674/67 affirming those of the learned Munsif, 3rd Court, Midnapore in Title Suit No. 162/67.
(2.) The plaintiff/respondent Smt. Kalibala Bhunia instituted the said Title Suit No. 162/62 against the defendant/appellant for a declaration that the Kobala executed by her in favour of the defendant on 28.1.64 is a void document without consideration and not binding on the plaintiff and for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the plaintiff's possession in respect of the suit land. Admittedly, the disputed property belonged to the husband of the plaintiff who died in 1367 B. S. leaving the plaintiff and a daughter named Gita Rani as his heirs. The plaintiff gave her daughter Gita Rani in marriage with one Haripada Sur. To meet the expenses of such marriage the plaintiff on behalf of herself and as guardian of her minor daughter sold some properties to her husband's elder brother. She also gave some properties by way of gift to her son-in-law Haripada as dowry for the marriage. Thereafter, her daughter died childless and the plaintiff inherited her share. It was alleged that after her daughter's death, her son-in-law and his father put pressure upon the plaintiff for executing a deed of gift in favour of her son-in-law Haripada but the plaintiff refused to accede to such demand. Plaintiff's husband's brother and her son-in-law then influenced plaintiff's bargadars to deliver meager quantity of paddy to the plaintiff as her share. Placed in such a predicament, the plaintiff sought for the assistance of her neighbour Khandu Singh who was then working as a labourer under defendant's father. Khandu introduced the plaintiff to the defendant who asked the plaintiff to execute and register a power of attorney in his favour for enabling him to look after her property and the plaintiff agreed to it. It was further alleged that on 21.8.64 the defendant got a kobala executed and registered by the plaintiff in respect of the suit land upon a fraudulent misrepresentation that the deed was a power of attorney and in that year the defendant realised plaintiff's share of bhag produce from the bargadars and delivered the same to her. Next year the defendant did not deliver her full share of the bhag crops and the plaintiff subsequently came to learn that the defendant surreptitiously procured a sale-deed from her under misrepresentation that the deed executed by her was a power of attorney. It was the case of the plaintiff that she executed the impugned sale deed on 21.8.84 under the impression that it was a power of attorney as misrepresented by the defendant and was not aware about the real nature of the document executed by her. It was not her conscious mental act and the sale deed was not binding on her.
(3.) The defendant contented the suit by filing a written statement alleging that the impugned sale deed was executed by the plaintiff with full knowledge of its contents. The recitals in the sale deed were read over and explained to her and she understood the contents thereof. It was her conscious mental act and no fraud was practiced upon her in the matter of the execution of the sale deed. The kobala was executed by the plaintiff for repayment of debts incurred by her in connection with her daughter's marriage and sradh ceremony of her daughter. The further defence case was that subsequent to the execution of the kobala the defendant was in khas possession of a portion of the suit land and he was in possession of the remaining portion through bargadars.;