Duly proved lease deed and admissions sustained ownership shares; fraud plea failed, and the decree was modified.

A duly proved lease deed was treated as genuine and binding because the plaintiff's mother was not shown to be a pardanashin or illiterate woman, had appeared in court and signed the document, and the absence of a recital that it was read over to her was not decisive. The plea of fraud failed, reinforced by the parties' long conduct under the arrangement and acceptance of possession and municipal dues in the stated proportions. The parties' shares were held to be 1/3rd for the plaintiffs and 2/3rds for the appellant, subject to the second defendant's limited residence and maintenance rights, and the decree was modified accordingly.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the deed of lease was binding and genuine and whether the plea of fraud or inadequate explanation to the plaintiff's mother could invalidate it; (ii) whether the parties' shares in the disputed property were 1/3rd and 2/3rds as recited in the deed or 8 annas each as claimed by the plaintiffs.

Issue (i): whether the deed of lease was binding and genuine and whether the plea of fraud or inadequate explanation to the plaintiff's mother could invalidate it.

Analysis: The plaintiff's mother was found not to be a pardanashin or illiterate woman, as she had appeared in court and signed the document. The absence of a recital that the document was read over and explained to her was therefore not decisive. The deed was prepared by a lawyer, supported by evidence of execution, and the admissions contained in it were treated as substantive evidence. The plea of fraud was also negatived by the parties' conduct over time, including acceptance of possession and payment of municipal dues in the stated proportions.

Conclusion: The deed of lease was held to be genuine and binding, and the plea of fraud failed.

Issue (ii): whether the parties' shares in the disputed property were 1/3rd and 2/3rds as recited in the deed or 8 annas each as claimed by the plaintiffs.

Analysis: The evidence showed that the arrangement between the parties was acted upon for years, the lease deed reflected the actual understanding, and the plaintiffs accepted the position that they held only 1/3rd share while the appellant held 2/3rds share. The court also accepted the limited residence and maintenance rights reserved for the second defendant.

Conclusion: The shares were held to be 1/3rd for the plaintiffs and 2/3rds for the appellant, subject to the residential and maintenance rights of the second defendant.

Final Conclusion: The decree of the trial court stood modified in accordance with the share declaration and the reserved rights of the second defendant, and the appeal succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: An admission contained in a duly proved document is substantive evidence, and where a party is not shown to be a pardanashin or illiterate woman, failure to prove a formal explanation of the document does not by itself invalidate the transaction or the admissions embodied in it.

---