GOMATHI AMMA Vs. C.V. KRISHNAN NAIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question whether a gift deed Ext.A-4, dtd. 20/3/1972 executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the 2nd defendant was vitiated by undue influence was the principal question which had been agitated and which had been considered by the courts below. They concurred to hold that the gift deed was so vitiated. The plaintiffs were given a decree which entitled them to a share in the property. In modification of the finding of the trial court on that aspect, the court below fixed the share as 1/3. On that question there is no further dispute.

(2.) The question of law on which notice was issued by this court in the second appeal reads:

(3.) The courts below have devoted considerable time and space for the discussion of the question. It is unnecessary to detail the various established facts from which the inference that undue influence vitiated that document has been drawn. There is clear documentary evidence (Exts.A-2 and A-3 letters) which would indicate that the 1st defendant did entertain an intense desire to give a share in the plaint schedule property to her sons, the plaintiffs in the suit. That being the background, the courts below have found that the 1st defendant would not have suddenly changed the mind and executed the gift deed denying any share of the properties to the plaintiffs. Added to the above background were the circumstances attendant on the execution and registration of the document. The executant was an old lady of 70 at the time of Ext.A-4, namely 20/3/1972. It is also significant that soon thereafter she had a paralystic stroke, and had to be treated as an inpatient from 20/7/1972. She ultimately succumbed to her ailment within two months thereafter. These facts would constitute safe guides on the question whether the 1st defendant at the time of execution of the gift deed was in a position to exercise her free Will.