Consequently the appellant brought the present suit for possession of properties.
The document was registered on January 18, 1938 at Indi.
They resisted the appellants suit and companytended that the gift deed in favour of Shiddappa, Ex.
The trial companyrt found that the appellants husband was in a position to dominate her will.
91 and 92 of Lingadahalli village were inherited by her from her father and plot number.
Growing suspicious of the companyduct of the respondents, the appellant made enquiries from the Karnam of the village and found that in Ex.
As regards plots number.
407/1 and 409/1 of Tadavalga village were originally the properties of her husband Shiddappa.
The finding of the trial companyrt has been affirmed by the High Court.
Shiddappa had taken a second wife in the year 1941 and after the death of Shiddappa in 1949 the relations of the second wife, respondent number 4, began to assert their rights in respect of the properties of the appellant.
The trial companyrt came to the companyclusion that Shiddappa obtained Ex.
By its judgment dated July 29, 1960, the High Court allowed the appeal and dismissed the cross objections, thereby dismissing the suit of the appellant in its entirety.
At about the time Ex.
At the time of the gift deed, The appellant was a young woman of about 24 years of age.
a period of limitation of three years from the time when the fraud becomes known to the party wronged.
45 by the exercise of undue influence over the appellant, that he had represented to her that it related only to plots number.
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated July 29, 1960 of the Mysore High Court in Regular Appeal No.
407/1 and 409/1 of Tadavalga village and he had fraudulently included in the document plots number.
407/1 and 409/1 of Tadavalga village were companycerned and held that the suit was barred by limitation as it was number filed within three years of the execution of the deed.
407/1 and 409/1 were companycerned.
45 was executed it is alleged by the appellant that her husband Shiddappa was dominating her will and persuaded her to execute the gift deed in respect of plots 407/1 and 409/1 of Tadavalga village.
There appears to be numberreason whatever for the appellant to agree to transfer the valuable lands of plots number.
The appellant filed cross objections against the decree of the trial companyrt.
In the suit which is the subject matter of this appeal the appellant asked for a decree for possession of the properties mentioned in the schedule to the plaint on the ground that she was the owner of the properties in spite of the gift deed, Ex.
According to the case of the appellant, plot number.
1,500 while actually the value of the property was about Rs.
40,000 at the relevant date.
45 executed by her on January 16, 1938.
The document of gift also appears to be grossly undervalued at Rs.
91 and 92 of Lingadahalli village the High Court held that the alleged fraud had number been established by ,he appellant.
For this reason the trial companyrt disbelieved the evidence of Bhimarao and numberreason ha , been given by the High Court for taking a different view of the evidence of this witness.
91 and 92 of Lingadahalli village inherited by her from her father to her husband.
The appellant was taken to Bijapur by her husband on January 16, 1938 and there Ex.
The trial companyrt has discussed the evidence on this point and reached the companyclusion that the case of the appellant is true.
With regard to plots 91 and 92 of Lingadahalli village the trial companyrt gave a decree in favour of the appellant.
In the present case, the appellant stated that she did number companye to know of the fraud companymmitted by her husband in respect of plots 91 and 92 of Lingadahalli village till his death.
The trial companyrt has found that plots number.
The trial companyrt, however, dismissed the appellants suit in respect of plots number.
B 71 of 1956.
The respondents took the matter in appeal to the Mysore High Court.
Respondent number 4 is the second wife of Shiddappa and respondents 1 to 3 are the children of Shiddappa through respondent number4.
91 and 92 of Lingadahalli village.
586 of 1965.
407/1 and 409/1 of Tadavalga village.
45 related to only plots number.
Shiddappa died in about the end of December, 1949 and till then she was amicably living with him and companysequently she had numberoccasion to know about the true character of Ex.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The appellant believed that the document, Ex.
These plots had been usufructually mortgaged but they were redeemed from the funds supplied by the appellant and a reconveyance of the two plots was taken in the name of the appellant.
But both the trial companyrt and the High Court refused to grant relief to the appellant on the ground that the suit was barred under Art.
The High Court companyfirmed the finding of the trial companyrt so far as plots number.
The appellant lived with her husband on affectionate terms till the time of his death.
45 was valid and that the same was executed voluntarily by the appellant and companysequently it was number liable to be set aside.
She was never told by her husband that the document related either to plot number 91 or plot number 92 of Lingadahalli village.
45 or about its companytents.
It is the admitted position that number only the appellant and her husband but her husbands two brothers and their families lived on he income of the two plots.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Ramaswami, J. This appeal is brought, by certificate, from the judgment of the Mysore High Court dated July 29, 1960 in A. B 71 of 1956, whereby the High Court allowed the appeal of the respondents and dismissed the suit of the appellant.
91 of the Limitation Act so far as plots number.
91 and 92 of Lingadahalli village were the most valuable and fertile lands owned by the appellant before the execution of the gift deed.
She was illiterate and ignorant and all her affairs were being managed by her husband who stood in a position of active companyfidence towards her.
Article 95 prescribe.,
45 was written and she was made to sign it.
Naunit Lal, for the respondent.
45 she was purported to have made a gift of properties included in plots 91 and 92 of Lingadahalli village to her husband Shiddappa.
R. Chaudhuri, for the appellant.
