MANY Vs. AYYAPPAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 28.2.2014 in O.S.No.324/2010 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, North Paravur (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') as confirmed by the judgment and decree dated 09.12.2019 in A.S.No.41 of 2016 on the file of the Additional District Court-II, North Paravur (hereinafter referred to as 'the first appellate court'). The appellants herein are the plaintiffs 1 and 3 in O.S.No.324/2010 of the trial court. The suit was dismissed and having suffered such a dismissal, the plaintiffs 1 and 3 instituted A.S.No.41/2016 before the first appellate court. The first appellate court concurred with the findings of the trial court and dismissed the appeal. For the sake of brevity, the parties are referred to in this appeal as their status in the original suit unless otherwise stated.

(2.) The suit was instituted for partition contending that the plaint schedule property comprising of 4.05 Ares situated in Sy.No.310/1 of Paravur Taluk belonged to the father of the plaintiffs. Apart from the plaintiffs, their father had other children. The 1st defendant was his wife and respondents 2 to 8 are his children. The 1st defendant expired during the pendency of the first appeal. The 6th defendant was in possession of the plaint schedule property. Even though the plaintiffs requested for a partition, the same was not acceded to by the 6th defendant on the ground that his father had executed a settlement deed as document No.5490 of Alangad Village in favour of the 6th defendant. This document was challenged by the plaintiffs on the ground that their father aged 70 years did not have the disposing capacity to execute such a deed. Hence, the plaintiffs filed the suit for cancellation of the settlement deed and also for partition of 4/10 share over the property.

(3.) The defendants entered appearance contending that the plaintiffs were aware of the settlement deed right from the very beginning in favour of the 6th defendant. According to the defendants, their father had sound disposing mind at the time of execution of the respective settlement deed.