RUKMABAI DATUSA POWAR Vs. FAKIRSA HANMANTSA CHAVAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiff against his deceased uncle's daughter, the defendant. The relationship of the parties is given in the pedigree in the plaint. The property with reference to which the dispute has arisen belonged to Nagusa, and on his death, it went to his widow Krishnabai, who died in 1913. The plaintiff is the nephew, that is the son of the brother of Nagusa, and the defendant is the daughter of another brother of Nagusa. It appears that there was a dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant with regard to this house. On November 29, 1920, there was a reference to arbitration. The arbitrator made his award on November 28, 1920, and the present plaintiff filed an application to have a decree in terms of the award on December 6, 1920. The decree was passed in terms of the award on December 7. In pursuance of the decree as soon as the sum of Rs. 200 was tendered by the present defendant and as soon as he realised that that was the only sum which he was to get under the award, he made an application on December 14, 1920, to the Court complaining of the fraudulent manner in which his consent to the Rajinama, that is, the reference to arbitration, was obtained, and as to how the decree came to be passed in a fraudulent manner on the award. Thereafter the sum of Rs. 200 which was tendered by the defendant was taken by the pleader who was engaged by the present plaintiff in these proceedings. It was handed over to the present plaintiff and a receipt was passed. He made several other futile attempts to get rid of the decree by applying to authorities who would have nothing to do with the setting aside of the decree.

(2.) After that decree was passed the present defendant obtained a decree against the tenant in possession in Suit No. 1537 of 1920 and applied to execute that decree. Then an obstruction was offered by the present plaintiff with the result that on the application (No. 94 of 1921) of the present defendant, who was the plaintiff there, the question of removing the obstruction was considered. The present plaintiff filed his answer to this application to which I shall refer hereafter. But, after examining the present plaintiff the Court made an order allowing the application. The obstruction of the opponent (i. e. the present plaintiff) was not accepted as valid. This order was made on October 30, 1921.

(3.) Shortly thereafter the present defendant obtained possession in execution of the decree which she had obtained against the tenant in possession. The present suit was filed by the plaintiff on July 5, 1923, in which he prayed for a declaration that the award decree in Suit No. 1681 of 1922 referred to in the plaint was void as it had been brought about by the defendant by defrauding the plaintiff and bringing undue influence to bear on him, and that it was therefore not binding on him. He prayed for possession of the property in question and other minor reliefs.