M RANGASAMY Vs. RENGAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant is defendant No. 1 in the suit out of which the appeal has arisen. Three sisters were plaintiff in the suit. The suit properties originally belonged to Nanjammal alias Kuttiammal, mother of the three plaintiffs and father of defendant No. 1 who was brother of three plaintiffs. Father of defendant No. 1 pre-deceased his mother Nanjammal. The husband of Nanjammal, i.e., father of the plaintiffs and grandfather of defendant No. 1 also pre-deceased his wife. Nanjammal died on 11th September, 1979 at an old age.

(2.) According to the plaintiffs, their mother in sound disposing mind duly executed on 20th August, 1966 a registered will whereunder she bequeathed in their favour properties described in Schedule A to the plaint. Schedule B properties also belonged absolutely to Nanjammal which, according to the allegations in the plaint, were inherited to the extent of 3/4th share by the three plaintiffs together and ¼th undivided share by defendant No. 1 according to law of succession Nanjammal having died intestate in respect of the said properties. After death of Nanjammal, the appellant began to assert his exclusive title to suit properties as a result whereof the plaintiffs sent a notice to him requiring him to restrain from unlawful interference in the enjoyment of the properties. In reply to the notice, the appellant denied the title of the plaintiffs to Schedule A and B properties and asserted his exclusive title under two settlement deeds dated 27th October, 1976 alleged to have been executed in his favour by Nanjammal. The plaintiff on receipt of the reply notice obtained copies of the said deeds and then only became aware about the said deeds which, it was claimed, were not validly executed. Under these circumstances, the plaintiffs who were respondents before us sought a declaration that plaint A Schedule properties belong exclusively to them and sought injunction restraining the appellant/first defendant from interfering and disturbing the plaintiffs exclusive possession and enjoyment of those properties through their tenant and further sought partition of Schedule B properties into 4 equal shares so as to allot three shares to the plaintiffs altogether and one share to defendant No.-1.

(3.) The trial Court held that the settlement deeds dated 27th October, 1976 which were in the nature of gift deeds in favour of the first defendant were not valid documents and the said deeds were brought into existence by fraud, misrepresentation and undue influence. The suit was, therefore, decreed.