MADHAVAN EZHUTHASSAN Vs. SREEDHARAN EZHUTHASSAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff is the appellant. He filed the suit for partition and declaration that Ext. B13 (copy of the same is Ext. A1) is not binding on him. He claims 1/4 share in the properties.

(2.) Grandfather of the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3 had two sons, Raman Ezhuthachan and Krishnan Ezhuthachan. Plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3 are the sorts of Krishnan Ezhuthachan and 4th defendant is his widow. Raman Ezhuthahan died as a bachelor. Raman Ezhuthachan and Krishnan Ezhuthachan died in an epidemic in 1115 M.E. It is the case of the plaintiff that under a mistaken belief that the 4th defendant is also entitled to a share in the properties and due to pressure exerted on him Ext. B13 agreement was executed on 13-8-1975 to divide the properties among himself and the defendants. Plaintiff contended that the terms and conditions in Ext. B13 were not adhered to while Ext. B14 was executed purporting to divide the properties, that there is a fundamental mistake in the agreement as the 4th defendant was given a share in the properties that he was not informed of the execution of Ext. B14, and that it is not binding on him.

(3.) Defendants contended that plaintiff is estopped from challenging Ext. B14, that Ext. B13 is a valid family settlement and that pursuant to it Ext. B14 partition deed was executed. The Trial Court held that Ext. B14 partition deed was made in conformity with Ext. B13 agreement and no departure has been made therefrom at least as far as the plaintiff is concerned and in such circumstances it cannot be said that Ext. B14 is either incomplete or inoperative.