MEETHALE VEETTIL SUBI Vs. MEETHALE VEETTIL LAKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed challenging Exhibit P7 order of the Maintenance Appellate Tribunal and District Collector, Kannur in M5-2015/14931/13. The 1 st respondent in this writ petition, who is the grandmother of the petitioner, had filed Exhibit P2 application before the maintenance Tribunal, Thallassery seeking to set aside Exhibit P1 gift deed dated 3.1.2012 by which 9 cents of property had been settled in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner filed Exhibit P3 objection before the Tribunal. It was contended in Exhibit P3 that the petitioner and her mother were willing to look after the 1 st respondent. It is stated that the petitioner is a temporary teacher and she has no other property except the property settled on her by the 1 st respondent by Exhibit P1 deed. It is stated that the 1 st respondent is staying with her daughter Dhanalaxshmy and that the petitioner and her mother had been providing all necessary assistance and medical help to the 1 st respondent. It is stated that the 1 st respondent had settled other items of property on her other children and Exhibit P1 settlement deed was executed by the 1 st respondent on her own free will for the purpose of construction of a residential house for the petitioner. It is stated that two non yielding coconut trees and two papaya trees had to be cut down for starting construction in the property. It is stated that the petitioner intended to complete the construction of the house immediately and to take the 1 st respondent to stay with her in the new house. It was also stated that the petition was as a result of some undue influence exerted on the 1st respondent.

(2.) Exhibit P4 additional counter statement was filed stating that no conditions to provide basic physical amenities and needs were incorporated in the gift deed and that the 1 st respondent is getting substantial income as interest from fixed deposit and does not require any help from the petitioner. It is stated that Exhibit P5 affidavit was also filed by the petitioner before the Tribunal stating that there was a family arrangement by which the petitioner's mother Suseela had settled 2 cents of property belonging to her in favour of her sister Dhanalakshmi in return for the 1 st respondent executing Exhibit P1 settlement deed. It is stated that the this writ petition is filed as a result of a dispute regarding partition of the property and therefore is not maintainable.

(3.) By Exhibit P6 order dated 12.2.2015, the Maintenance Tribunal considered the contentions of the parties and the materials produced before it and found that the 1 st respondent was unable to establish that Exhibit P1 document was vitiated by any misrepresentation of fraud. Relying on the affidavit filed by the petitioner to the effect that the 1 st respondent had an amount of Rs.40 lakhs in fixed deposit, it was held that this allegation could not be disproved by the 1 st respondent. Taking note of the fact that the petitioner had offered to meet the expenses for maintenance of the 1 st respondent, the prayer for cancellation of Exhibit P1 document was rejected.