E.E.MUHAMMED ASHRAF Vs. P.K.SUHARA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Decree obtained by the mother declaring Ext.A1 registered settlement deed dated 19.4.2011 taken in the name of her elder son as void in O.S.No.102/2013, is challenged in this appeal. The son was also permanently restrained from disturbing mother's possession as per the decree passed by the Sub Court, Kochi. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree, the son has preferred this appeal.

(2.) The respondent's son is the eldest son in the family and on the date of Ext.A1 settlement deed, he along with his family were residing with her under the same roof. She is a widow aged 72 years. Respondent's case in the plaint is that in the month of April, 2011, the appellant approached her with a demand for raising some amount of loan by pledging the plaint property for discharging his existing debt and raising funds for giving his young daughter in marriage. After getting a nod from her younger son, PW2, she agreed to pledge the land. She says that she was taken to two offices on 19.7.2011 where she signed a few papers in the presence of the appellant. According to her, she was not told by anybody that the document which she signed was a settlement deed. She executed the document believing that it was a mortgage deed intended to help the appellant for raising loan. Only when she fell ill in 2012 and thought of sharing the property among all children equally, she understood that appellant had deceived her by nocking off her land. Therefore, she filed the present suit for declaring the settlement deed as void and for consequential injunction.

(3.) The appellant contested the suit pleading that the settlement deed was executed out of natural love and affection towards him since plaint property was purchased years ago in the name of the respondent with his own funds. He said that after death of his father, he was looking after the whole family and had given his sisters in marriage and so in discharge of moral obligation, the mother settled the property in his sole name. He denied having had any existing debt or having decided to give Surumi, his daughter in marriage during the relevant period. He also contended that appellant signed the document after being aware of the contents and she herself arranged DW2, the document writer. According to him, the cause for institution of the suit is that after marriage of Surumi in 2012, the appellant out of her ego had a feeling that she was not given as much prominence in the marriage ceremony of Surumi as her mother-in-law. So she immediately left the house and joined PW2. It is also contended that suit was brought at the instigation of PW2.