SUBBEGOWDA Vs. THIMMEGOWDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Thimmegowda, the sole respondent herein, has died during the pendency of these proceedings and his widow and one daughter (major and unmarried) are on record as legal representatives of the deceased. Thimmegowda and Subbegowda were real brothers. Thimmegowda did not have any son. His family consisted of his wife and four daughters. Narayani (or Narayana), impleaded as appellant No.2, is the son of Subbegowda. Subbegowda, the appellant No.1, has also died during the pendency of these proceedings.

(2.) Thimmegowda, having no male issue, adopted Narayani, the son of his younger brother Subbegowda. A deed of adoption dated 4-6-1965 was executed and registered. On 1-8-1969, another deed came to be executed and registered by Thimmegowda and this deed is the subject matter of controversy in these proceedings. The deed is styled as Settlement Deed. The contents of the deed reveal what had impelled Thimmegowda to execute the deed. Thimmegowda had agricultural land but was unable to carry out agricultural operations. Out of his four daughters, he had performed the marriage of the two and the remaining two, respectively aged 10 and 4 years at that time, were yet to be married and were residing with the parents. The deed goes on to state-

(3.) On 9-11-1970, Thimmegowda filed a suit against Narayani and his natural father Subbegowda seeking setting aside of the settlement deed dated 1-8-1969 on the ground of fraud and misrepresentation and the consequential relief of restoration of possession over the suit schedule properties. The trial Court dismissed the suit on the finding that any circumstances vitiating the voluntary execution and registration of the deed were not made out. Fraud and misrepresentation, as alleged by the plaintiff, were not proved. First appeal preferred by the plaintiff was dismissed. A second appeal was preferred. The High Court framed and dealt with a single substantial question of law- "Whether a deed purported to be settlement deed could be validly executed with a term enabling the settler to have the deed set aside and in such a case whether such a deed could convey valid title to the settlee - In a brief judgment, dealing with the question of law as framed, the High Court formed an opinion that the power of revocation of settlement deed was expressly reserved to himself by the settler in the deed itself and, therefore, the settler was fully justified in law to invoke the revocation clause. Other issues were of no significance. It was open for the executant to cancel the deed of settlement and that having been done the suit was liable to be decreed. The High Court set aside the judgments and decrees of the trial Court and the first appellate Court and passed a decree in favour of the plaintiff. Feeling aggrieved, the defendants namely Narayani, the adopted son, and his natural father Subbegowda are in appeal of whom, as already stated, Subbegowda has died.