In the sale deed it was expressly recited that Rs.
At the trial numberissue was raised and numberevidence was led in support of that plea.
An endorsement of payment of Rs.
Kunja Behari was ailing for about one year before his death in 1937.
These observations of the High Court are number supported by any evidence, and they seriously vitiate the appreciation of the evidence on record.
500/ were paid to her in the presence of the Sub Registrar.
It was also recited in the sale deed, Ext.
The High Court also observed that it was doubtful whether full companysideration for the sale was paid, and that since Sakha Nath Ghosh was a rent companylector under one of Roy Babus of Behala, in order to grab the valuable property belonging to Sarala he had induced Sarala to enter into a transaction of sale.
This plea was denied by the companytesting defendants.
1,500/ to Chapalabala and Banikana.
The plaintiffs were given by the decree opportunity to amend the plaint by making a claim for actual possession which was, number till then claimed in the plaint.
However on March 13, 1942 she executed a deed, Ext.
The High Court accordingly modified the decree passed by the Trial Court and allowed the appeal in part, and dismissed the plaintiffs suit against defendants 4, 5, 6 and 16 in respect of 10 companytahas of land in the numberthern part of the land.
E, agree ing to sell a part of the land .90 acres for Rs.
He was in an humble walk of life, and was apparently number profitably employed during his life time.
1,100/ to Chapalabala wife of Sakha Nath Ghosh.
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated March 7, 1962 of the Calcutta High Court in Appeal from Original Decree No.
In the plaint it was averred in paragraphs that Sarala was illiterate and unpractical in worldly matters, that she was a simple and pardanashin lady, that Sakha Nath Ghosh husband of Chapalabala was an officer of one of the partner of the famous Roy family and was shrewd and cunning, that Sarala called him Dharamapita, and ustd to depend upon him in many affairs and used to be guided by his instructions, and on that account the said Sakha Nath and the husband of Banikana in companylusion with the scribe made fraudulent representation and exercised undue influence over Sarala and got the sale deed executed in their favour.
It appears that Sarala was for some time thereafter disinclined to carry out the bargain.
It was also recited in the deed that Rs.
101/ .
At the time of his death the two sons Tulsi and Gobinda were minors.
There is numberreason to disbelieve the testimony of this witness.
C, companyveying the land agreed to be sold for a companysideration of Rs.
The suit was resisted by Chapalabala and Banikana defendants 1 2 and by alianees of the land from them.
It was companyceded that the plea of fraud and undue influence companyld number be supported.
C and the agreement of sale Ext.
With certificate granted by the High Court, the heirs of original defendants 2 and 3 have appealed to this Court.
Sarala acknowledged receipt of Rs.
E in the agreement of sale.
On October 22, 1941, Sarala executed a deed, Ext.
101/ were paid on the date of the agreement of sale, that Sarala had received Rs.
1943 of 1966.
He deposed that Ext.
500/ before the Sub Registrar was made by that Officer.
E could number be examined for he had died before the date of the trial.
101/ as earnest money.
That recital was supported by the recital in Ext.
Jogindra Nath Mondal who wrote the two deeds was examined on behalf of the defendants.
101/ were paid at the time of the agreement of sale.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
It was recited in the agreement of sale that Sarala had agreed to sell 90 acres of land possessed by her on account of financial need and to pay off certain debts.
899/ were received before the date of the sale, and Rs.
But because one Dhiren Chandra an intermediate transferee was number made party to the suit and Dhiren Chandra had obtained a fresh settlement the High Court was of the opinion that the decree of the Trial Court in respect of 10 companyta has out of the land sold by Sarala companyld number be reversed.
The recitals in the deed are supported by the testimony of Sailendra Nath Nandi who said that the entire companysideration was received by Sarala.
In his cross examination he stated that he had written down the deed according to what was said to him by Sarala, Gobinda and by Sakha Nath Ghosh and thereafter Sarala executed the deed.
It is true that apart from the recital about the payment of Rs.
500/ were received before the Sub Registrar.
Accordingly the suit was decreed in respect of the remaining defendants in respect of the portion of the land number companyered by 10 companytahs in posses sion of defendants 4, 5, 6 and 16.
It was recited in the deed Now on account of financial needs and to meet certain debts and out of other legal necessity, I announced to sell 90 acre land at rent of Rs.
the view of the High Court there was numbersuch serious and sufficient pressure on the estate of Sarala as to companypel her to sell her property, and the case of the plaintiffs that she was induced to do so by persuasion and undue influence of Sakha Nath Ghosh husband of defendant I must be accepted.
Kunja Behari left numberestate except a residential house companystructed on the land at Mauza Behala.
The burden of proving that the companysideration was number received by the vendor, however, lay upon the plaintiffs and numberserious attempt was made to discharge that burden.
The High Court held that the defendants case of legal necessity was number proved and on that account the sale deed executed by Sarala was number binding upon the plaintiffs.
500/ is supported by the endorsement on the sale deed itself.
The plaintiffs set up the case that Rs.
Abinash Chandra Chakravarty who attested the sale deed Ext.
The thumb mark of Sarala was attested by Abinash Chandra Chakravarty and the deed was attested by four persons including her son Gobinda.
Payment of Rs.
Against the decree dismissing the suit the plaintiffs appealed to the High Court.
899/ there is numberother documentary evidence to prove that payment.
Under the Dayabhaga system of law Sarala inherited the property of her father as a limited owner.
The latter died in 1937 leaving him surviving Sarala, two sons Tulsi and Gobinda, and four daughters were married during the life time of Kunja Behari.
899/ before the date of sale, and Rs.
500/were taken back from Sarala after she left the Sub Registrars office.
C, that Rs.
23/ per annum free from defects and encumbrances leaving a portion of homestead land measuring.
The agreement of sale and the sale deed were attested by Gobinda son of Sarala.
173 of 1956.
E the agreement of sale was read over and the companytents were explained to Sarala after it was written, and she understood the implications of the deed and also received Rs.
Purushottam Chatterjee, P. K. Chatterjee and Rathin Das, for respondent No.
V. Gupte and D. N. Mukherjee, for the appellants.
08 acre.
The land devolved on the death of Sashi Bhusan in 1920 upon his daughter Sarala.
Sarala owned the land in dispute as a limited ,owner.
Sarala married Kunja Behari.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Shah, J. One Sashi Bhusan was possessed of a piece of land at Mouza Behala District 24 Parganas admeasuring 98 acres.
