9911796707
TMI Blog1981 (8) TMI 251X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of premises No. 55, Subal Das Road, 35, Nawabgunj Road, 50/1, Subal Das Road and 47, Nawabgunj Das Road within the Dacca Municipality. Since Milan Bala was not an heir of Gopal Chandra, he made provision for her maintenance by making a gift of 2 rooms of his residential house for her and also providing for a sum of ₹ 6 per month for her maintenance. After partition of Bengal the plaintiffs, defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 2 migrated to West Bengal. Defendant No. 1 was the Karta of the Hindu joint family. An arrangement was made with the heirs of Abdul Sovan Khan that an exchange would be made. The valuation of the Dacca property was assessed at ₹ 17,000 and of the Dum Dum property in Calcutta at ₹ 22,000. Powers of Attor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not comply with the demand. Hence the suit for partition on the allegation that the plaintiffs had 8 annas share in the property in question. 2. Defendant No. 2 Milan Bala filed a written statement supporting the plaintiff's assertions. 3. Defendant No. 1 filed a written statement denying the plaintiffs' allegations. His case is that after the death of Gopal Chandra, Haralal sold his undivided 1/2 share in the premises No. 50, Subal Das Road to a stranger. Haralal also mortgaged premises No. 55, Subal Das Road for ₹ 1000. Defendant No. 1 paid that debt and obtained the deed of mortgage from the mortgagee. Hence Haralal had the liability to pay this dues. After that arrangement for exchange was made, defendan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cessity. There is no such legal necessity or any element of benefit of the minor plaintiff No. 1 when the deed of lease was 'executed. Reference has also been made to the cases of Chinta Desya v. Bhalku Das in (1930) 51 Cal LJ 465: (AIR 1930 Cal 591), Sm. Sonia Parshini v. Sheikh Moula Baksha in and A. E. G. Carapiet v. A. Y. Derderian in and Mohini 'Mohan v. Southern Bank Ltd., reported In (1954) 94 Cal LJ 39. It has been urged that when a person is dealing with a pardanasin illiterate woman, it is for him to show that the contents of the deed were read over and explained to her. It has also been stated that the privilege extended to a pardanasin lady will apply to an illiterate woman, though not pardanasin, Moreover there is no ce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... man. This discussion is sufficient for the disposal of the appeal because there is no appropriate prayer hi the plaint in this respect. 9. Then about the Dacca properties, it has been pointed out on behalf of the appellant that Haralal executed a mortgage for ₹ 1000 regarding one of the Dacca properties and defendant No. 1 satisfied the dues of the mortgage. According to the provisions of S- 17(1)(c) of the Indian Registration Act, registration is necessary to extinguish a mortgage for ₹ 1000. But there is an exception, which has been engrafted in Clause (xi) of Sub-section (2). The endorsement, Ext. A,' has been proved in this case to show that the dues of the mortgage were paid. This is admissible in evidence and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e la distinguishable because in that case a certified copy of a statement of the witness was sought to be used as his admission. In that view of the matter it has been stated in that case that an admission cannot be admitted in evidence unless the previous statements made be first put to him and liberty is given to him to explain the same. It may be pointed out that in that case of Sita-ram, the Supreme Court decisions and in were not considered. It has been clearly stated in those cases that when there is an admission, it is not necessary to confront the person concerned with his previous statement. This admission has not been proved to be erroneous. In that view of the matter it must be held that the document of lease, Ext, 2, is a genuin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2, Biswanath Paul, who says that the parties signed in the documents in their presence. 16. P.W. 1, Suhasini, has stated in her cross-examination that after the execution of the Deed of Lease, Mahabir had been paying 2/3rds share and plaintiffs 1/3rd share towards cess and taxes. They did not raise any objection to the same for the last 10 years. This conclusively shows that the version given by the defendant No. 1 is true and the terms of Ext, 2, Deed of Lease, were accepted by the plaintiffs and they were acted upon. So the question of fraud is ruled out. Had there been any fraud, plaintiff No. 2 would not have accepted possession of only the four rooms and paid Municipal taxes to the extent of 1/3rd share. The defendant No. 2 h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
