Parvatu Devi vs Kanta Devi and Others

Deepak Gupta, J.—This petition is directed against the order dated 30.4.2009 passed by the learned District Judge, Bilaspur in Civil Misc. Petition No. 129 of 2009 in Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2009 whereby he permitted the Appellant (hereinafter referred to as the Defendant) to lead additional evidence.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the present Petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Plaintiff) filed a suit against Kanta Devi and her husband Sh. Madan Lal. In this suit it was prayed that the gift deed dated 3.3.1997 executed by the Plaintiff in favour of the Defendants be held to be null and void as the same is as a result of fraud, misrepresentation and undue influence. One of the grounds urged for setting aide the gift deed was that the Plaintiff was an old Parda Nashin Lady and never intend to execute the gift deed in favour of Defendant No. 1. This suit was decreed in favour of the Plaintiff. Appeal was filed by Kanta Devi and during the pendency of this appeal, an application was filed for permission to lead additional evidence.

By means of this application, the Defendant-applicant wanted to place on record material to show that the Plaintiff had been prosecuted under Sections 324, 323 IPC by her son Bhag Chand. The applicant also wanted to place on record material to show that previously Parvatu Devi had executed a Will which she had revoked by visiting the office of Sub-Registrar. By means of these documents, it is sought to be proved that the Plaintiff was well aware of the Court proceedings and was not a Parda Nashin Lady.

The learned lower Appellate Court allowed this application. The main ground of challenge is that these documents have no direct concern with the dispute in the main suit i.e. the validity of the Gift allegedly executed by the Petitioner in favour of Kanta Devi. No doubt, these documents if produced will not prove or disprove the validity of the gift deed, but they are relevant to decide whether the Plaintiff-Petitioner is such a lady who would blindly sign any document or not. It: cannot be said that these documents are totally irrelevant to decide the case. One of the issue involved is, whether the Plaintiff is an illiterate simpleton Parda Nashin Lady and the Respondent-Defendant is well within her rights to lead evidence to show that the Plaintiff has been appearing in Court or before other authorities and, therefore, cannot be expected to sign documents blindly. Therefore, I find no merit in the petition, which is accordingly dismissed. No costs.