MERI DAISY RANI AND ORS. Vs. ANTHONIMUTHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendants in O.S. No. 352/2001 on the files of the Munsiff's Court, Palakkad have come up with this appeal against the decree and judgment passed by the District Court, Palakkad in A.S. No. 158/2004. The respondents approached the trial court for a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the appellants from entering upon the plaint schedule property as well as from interfering with the possession of the respondents among other reliefs.

(2.) In the plaint it is alleged that the suit property originally belonged to the father of the parties herein as per a partition deed of 1989 of SRO, Palakkad. Their father expired on 12.3.1998. During his life time he had executed a Will by which the property devolved upon the mother of the parties. On 23.8.2000, the mother of the parties executed Ext. B1 deed in favour of the appellants in respect of the plaint schedule property. The respondent/plaintiff alleged that though Ext. B1 is described as settlement deed, it was a Will and therefore, a fresh Will, Ext. A3 had been executed by the mother on 21.11.2000 cancelling Ext. B1 and later by Ext. A4 dated 2.11.2000 the properties were assigned to him. Therefore, according to the respondent/plaintiff, he was in possession and enjoyment of the property.

(3.) The appellants/defendants contended that Ext. B1 is the settlement deed executed by the mother in their favour and the same was accepted by them. Therefore, it was their specific case that in furtherance of Ext. B1, they came to be in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property therein. According to them, the reservation made in Ext. B1 was with respect to the life interest of the mother only and the entire property was conveyed and delivered to the appellants. Therefore, according to the appellants, Exts. A3 and A4 and other documents are not binding on them and they have no effect so long as Ext. B1 is there. They further contended that the mother had no right even to cancel Ext. B1 as it had come into force on the date of execution. Therefore, the appellants prayed for a dismissal of the suit.