KARUNA KUMAR K. M. Vs. K.M. GANGADHARAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is defendant No.1 in O.S.No.60/2020 and he is aggrieved of the rejection of the application filed under Order VII Rule 11(a)(b)(d) of CPC.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein filed the suit seeking partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties by meets and grounds and for allotment of half share each to the plaintiffs while also seeking a declaration to hold that the alleged Release Deed dtd. 19/8/2001 as fraudulent, invalid and not binding on the plaintiffs. One of the grounds raised by the applicant-defendant No.1 was that the plaintiffs, although aware of the fact that plaintiff No.1 had executed a registered Release Deed dtd. 19/8/2001 giving up all her rights in respect of the suit schedule properties has cleverly stated that she came to know of the Release Deed only when a reply was given by the defendants to the notice issued by the plaintiffs, regarding the execution of the Release Deed.

(3.) It is however pointed out that in paragraph 10 of the plaint, the plaintiffs have stated that they approached the Sub-Registrar office and obtained copy of the alleged Release Deed dtd. 19/8/2001 and to their surprise, they found that the document is a created document. It is also stated that defendant No.1 exploited the loneliness and inability of plaintiff No.1 and had obtained her signatures on some papers.