NARAYANI BHANUMATHI Vs. LELITHA BHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There is only a short question for decision in this Second Appeal and that concerns whether Ex. P1 settlement deed dated 1-6-1963 executed by defendants 2 and 3 in favour of the plaintiff and 4th defendant has been accepted by the plaintiff. Defendants 2 and 3 are the parents of the 4th defendant who is said to have married the plaintiff. Apparently Ex. P1 settlement deed refers to the plaintiff as wife of the 4th defendant though 4th defendant disputes the factum of the marriage and the validity of the marriage because, according to the 4th defendant, plaintiff had a husband living on the date of the alleged marriage. Whatever that be, it is clear that the settlement deed Ext. P1 was executed on the basis that the plaintiff and the 4th defendant were living or proposing to live as husband and wife. It is said that the plaintiff has a child by the 4th defendant. The 4th defendant apparently left the plaintiff later in search of pastures new. Thereafter, defendants 2 and 3 are said to have been persuaded to ignore the settlement already effected and to execute a new settlement deed in favour of the 1st defendant, the daughter, and that is said to be the provocation for the suit.

(2.) That the settlement deed of 1964 in favour of the 1st defendant would not stand in case property had been already gifted admits of no doubt. No vitiating circumstance is pleaded in regard to Ex. P1. But it is said that though it was executed it was not accepted by the plaintiff and the 4th defendant, so much so, that when a new settlement deed was executed, Ex. P1 stood revoked. That is how the question of acceptance of Ex. P1 becomes relevant.

(3.) Between the date of Ext. P1 and subsequent settlement deed dated 25-7-1964, there was an interval of more than one year. When the fresh settlement deed was executed, the reason shown for its execution was that the 4th defendant did not look after defendants 2 and 3 as assured to them earlier when executing Ex. P1, and therefore the document was being cancelled. Apart from the fact that at the earliest point of time when they could have said that there was no acceptance of the settlement if that was the truth, they did not do so what is more important is that the statement in the fresh settlement deed Ex. D2 goes to negative a case of absence of consent. If the earlier settlement deed was executed on an assurance that defendants 2 and 3 will be looked after, that presupposes the knowledge of the gift by the donees and an understanding reached between them at the time of execution of the settlement deed which could be sufficient to support the plea of acceptance especially when there is no question of the donee getting possession of properties since there was reservation of right to enjoy the property in the donors during their life time.