(1.) THE Judgment of the court was delivered by
(2.) THIS is an appeal by special leave from a judgment and decreeof the Kerala High court whereby the appeal preferred by respondent No. 1herein was allowed and the suit was dismissed. The following pedigree tablewill be helpful in understanding the facts :(For pedigree see next page.) <IMG>JUDGEMENT_159_3_1970Image1.jpg</IMG>
(3.) IT appears that before the High court the decision of the Trial courtrelating to the will was not challenged. At any rate since the will was neverproduced the sole question which we are called upon to decide is whetherthe deed of settlement Ex. B-3 was executed in circumstances which renderedit invalid and void. IT was stated in this document that on 30/09/1955 a will had been executed by the executant but he considered it advisableto execute a settlement deed in respect of his immovable and movableproperties and also for the discharge of his debts etc. This, it was staled.was being done in supersession of the will. IT was stated that respondent No. 1had been nursing the executant and looking after him and therefore he wasconferring full rights over his properties on him subject to certain conditions. He was to have full right to enjoy the said properties and collect theirincome till his lifetime. After his death Narayana Bhatta was entitled totake possession of his properties and get the Pattas executed in his name andhe was to have absolute and perpetual rights in them. Lakshmiamma wasto be maintained by Narayana Bhatta. If she found it inconvenient to livewith him he was to pay to her annually till her death two candies of Arecawhich was to be the first charge on the properties. If he failed to givearecanuts on the due dates he was to pay the price thereof at the prevailingmarket rate together with interest @ 5 % per annum. Certain debts werementioned which were intended to be paid off by the executant but if thatwas not done Narayana Bhatta was to discharge them. The following portionof the deed may be reproduced