- (1.) Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the parties.
(2.) The Second Appeal arose out of challenge of the judgment and decree dated 9th July, 1996 passed by the learned District Judge, Second Court, Krisnnanagore, Nadia in Title Suit No. 13 of 1996 reversing the judgment and decree dated 21 st day of December, 1995 passed by the learned Munsif, Third Court, Krishnanagore, District-Nadia in Title Suit No. 1 of 1993. This appeal was admitted for hearing on 12th April, 1999 by the Division Bench of this Court presided over by Samaresh Banerjea and M.H.S. Ansari, JJ. (as their Lordships then were) on added grounds being ground No. X, which reads to this effect :- "For that it being the decided principles of law as laid down in 66 CWN page 255 that Special close of protection enjoyed by parda nasin women is available to illiterate male person the Court of Appeal below sought to have followed the said decision and the decision recorded in AIR 1963 SC 1203 and ought not to have reversed the finding of the Trial Court simply on the ground that the plaintiff had acquainted with registration office to register the immovable property and he has known of worldly affairs".
(3.) Before adverting the issue as to whether any question of law involved therein a factual foundation of the case in short is to be dealt with. The appellant before this Court as a plaintiff filed the said title suit praying for declaration of title over the suit property and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from causing any disturbance in the peaceful possession of the suit property, declaration that the concerned Deed of Sale as mentioned in the prayer were null and void on the ground of exercising fraud and permanent injunction about fate of such Deed and other consequential reliefs. The plaintiff/appellant herein in the suit in a nut shell contended, inter alia, that on 10th August, 1984, the plaintiff was brought to the Palasi Para for medical treatment by the wife/defendant and the brother, who is also the another defendant namely, the defendant Nos. 1 and 4 respectively and leftthumb impression of the plaintiff was taken on some written papers on misrepresentation that those papers would be required for medical treatment. Subsequently when a quarrel ensued in the year 1991 it was disclosed by the defendant No. 1, the wife that the schedule property was already disposed by Sale Deed by the plaintiff which was on query from the plaintiff was handed over for perusal. With the help of other persons the meaning of those two deeds were understood. As the plaintiff never executed such Deed, the suit was filed.;