The defendant denied the allegations companytained in the plaint and alleged that the deed of maintenance was read over and explained to the plaintiff and her mother in law and that one Babu Ramnath Singh, brother of the plaintiff, was present at the time of the execution and affixed his signature on behalf of the plaintiff.
On the pleadings the following issues, among others, were framed Issue No.
the learned Munsif found on issues 3 and 4 that Rameshwar Rai died in state of separation from Jangbahadur, that the plaintiff and her mother in law were ignorant pardhanashin ladies, that the two ladies had full companyfidence in the 1st defendant, and that the document, Ex.
The relief claimed is rather involved, but in sub.
In the words of the learned Judge, it was the duty of the plaintiff to prove that there was fraud companymitted and as that had number been established the question whether the document had been read over and explained to the plaintiff, in my opinion, in the circumstances, does number arise.
With those allegations, among others, the plaintiff filed a suit in the Court of the Munsif, Muzaffarpur, for the following reliefs On a companysideration of the aforesaid facts and also on adjudicating the plaintiffs title and the absence of title of the defendants, it may be adjudged by the companyrt that the deed of agreement for maintenance is altogether fraudulent and number binding upon the plaintiff.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated December 2, 1957, of the Patna High Court in S. A. No.
He denied that he had companymitted any fraud.
3 Is the allegation of separation between Rameshwar Rai and defendant No.
522 of 1959.
C. was number read over to the plaintiff and she did number execute it after understanding the companytents thereof.
On a companysideration of the entire evidence.,
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
On those findings the suit was decreed in terms of the plaint prayer.
stance it is a relief for a declaration of the plaintiffs title to the suit property and for a declaration that the maintenance deed, having been executed by fraud, was number binding on her.
1 in the month of Asardh 1334 Fs.
Sarjoo Prasad and K. P. Gupta, for the respondents.
It was also alleged that the document was always in the custody of the first defendant, that the plaintiff and her mother in law, till the latter is death, were getting the income from the property as they were getting before the execution of the said document and that they came to know of the fraud only in 1355 fasli, when the first defendant began to interfere with the possession and occupation of the property by the plaintiff and disclosed to several people that she had only a right to maintenance and thereafter when she got the document read over to her and discovered the fraud.
They also alleged in the plaint that the, deed in question was never read out to them, that the scribe and the attesting witnesses were partisans of the first defen dant.
Ramlal Rai Jamuna Rai Jangbahadur Rai D 1 Kasida Kuer deceased Rameshwar Rai deceased Mst.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SUBBA RAO, J. This appeal by ,special leave is preferred against the judgment of a single Judge of the Patna High Court, The facts that gave rise to this appeal may be briefly stated to appreciate the findings of the various companyrts and the companyten tions of the parties, the following genealogy will be useful.
April 9.
Jugeshar Rai Rambirchh Rai Mahessar Rai D 2 D 3 D 4 The case of the plaintiff, who is the widow of Rameshwar Rai, is that her husband and Jangbahadur, defendant 1, effected a partition of the family property in or about 1924, that after the partition he was in exclusive possession of the property that fell to his share, that he died in the year 1930, that thereafter she and her mother in law companytinued to be in possession of the said property,, that her mother in law died in 1938, that the first defendant asked her and her mother in law to execute a power of attorney in his favour, that they, being pardha nashin ladies, executed a document in his favour on August 24, 1935, believing it to be a power of attorney, that subsequently they came to know that it was a maintenance deed companytaining false recitals to the effect that there was numberseparation and that the property was joint family property.
Kharbuja Kuer Plff.
791 of 1963.
P. Singh, for the appellant.
