NOOR MOHAMMED Vs. SHAHUL HAMEED AMIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal is by the plaintiff in O.S.No.234 of 1980 of the Second Additional Sub Judge, Thiruvananthapuram in which he sought to set aside Ext.B3 settlement deed he had executed and for recovery of possession of the suit properties. Defendants 1 to 4 are his children, 5th defendant is the daughter of the first defendant and defendants 6 to 9 are the children of the third defendant. Defendants 10 to 12 are certain transferees of properties from the other defendants. The plaintiff was a teacher and a P.W.D. Contractor. The suit properties are his self acquisitions. The first defendant is a practising Advocate, in whom he had full confidence, and was managing his affairs and properties. Allegedly the plaintiff fell ill in March, 1978 and he expressed his desire to settle his properties upon the children, make provisions for discharge of his liabilities and wanted the first defendant to arrange for the same. His physical condition deteriorated in July, 1978 and he was unable even to attend to his normal chores. He was fully, dependant upon the first defendant, who had been looking after him. Eventually the first defendant made him believe that he had arranged for his treatment in Ayurvedic College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram. Just before he was admitted there he was taken to his office at Vanchiyoor, where he spent the night and on the next day afternoon, a draft of the settlement deed was shown and he was made to believe that it was prepared as per his wishes. He signed the document at the places indicated and it was registered on 31-7-1978. Later he was taken to an expert doctor for better treatment and his condition improved. All the documents relating to the documents were with the first defendant. But later he came to realise that the document had not been prepared as per his wishes. The properties were in his possession and he had been taking the income. On 20-6-1980 he came to know from the 12th defendant that defendants 2 and 3 had alienated portions of the properties settled in their favour. On 23-6-1980 he got a copy of the settlement deed and upon perusing the same he realised that the first defendant had misrepresented matters to him and played fraud in collusion with defendants 1 and 3. The deed did not represent his intentions and desires. He maintained that he signed the document without being fully aware of the nature of the dispositions. The execution of the document was also not voluntary or in exercise of his free will. A major portion of the properties had been allotted to the first defendant. Defendants 5 to 9 were also given shares. He contended that the document is either void or voidable and not binding on him. Accordingly he filed the suit to set aside the document and for recovery of possession of the properties from the defendants.

(2.) Defendants 2, 3 and 6 to 20 together and defendants 1 and 5 filed written statements. The present petitioner who was the fourth defendant remained ex parte. The allegations in the plaint were denied by the contesting defendants, who maintained that the plaintiff was not entitled to the reliefs claimed and prayed for dismissal of the suit.

(3.) On the contentions, the court below raised appropriate issues, The plaintiff and 7 witnesses were examined as PWs 1 to8. Defendants 1, 12 and 20 gave evidence of D.Ws. 1, 4 and 6 and 3 witnesses were examined as D.Ws. 2, 3 and 5. Exts.A1 to A17, Exts.B1 to B49, Exts, C1 to C3 and Ext. X-1 were marked. The court below held that the plaintiff executed Ext.B3 voluntarily after knowing its contents and that it is not liable to be set aside. It was also held that he was not in possession of the suit properties as alleged. The suit was dismissed with costs of defendants 1 to 3 and 5 to 20.