PALLIKKANDI ROHINI Vs. PADMINI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENTS 1 and 3 to 10 in the appeal have filed this application under Order 1 Rule 10 Code of Civil Procedure and Section 151 Code of Civil Procedure for transposing them as additional Appellants. The facts leading to this application can briefly be stated first. O.S. No. 23 of 1973 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Tellicherry was a suit filed by one Thale for a declaration that the gift deed dated 28th October 1971 alleged to have been executed by her in favour of the Defendants is not binding on her; nor on the plaint schedule properties. She also prayed alternatively that the gift deed be set aside on the ground that it was brought about by undue influence at the instance of the husband of the second Defendant.

(2.) THE first Defendant is her daughter and Defendants 2 to 6 are her grand children. She was living with Defendants 1 and 2. The second Defendant's husband Krishnan was also staying with her. He was managing the affairs of the Plaintiff and was in full control and command of the Plaintiff's affairs. On 29th October 1971 when the first Defendant was away, the second Defendant and her husband persuaded the Plaintiff to go to Cannanore and got the gift deed executed and registered under the pretext that a power of attorney was necessary for prosecuting the rent control petition filed by her in the Munsiff's Court, Cannanore. The Plaintiff is said to be illiterate and physically week, old and mentally worn. The Plaintiff owned four items of properties, items 1 and 2 exclusively and items 3 and 4 jointly with the second Defendant in equal halves. Items 3 and 4 were very valuable and items 1 and 2 comparatively negligible in value, As per the gift deed, items 1 and 2 were gifted to Defendants 1 and 3, 3 to 6 and the half right in items 3 and 4 to the second Defendant. Subsequently she came to know of the real nature of the document and that she was the victim of a fraud. Consequently she executed a cancellation deed on 1st December 1971 and then filed the present suit.

(3.) THE trial Court dismissed the suit. The Plaintiff thereupon filed this appeal as an indigent person. Her petition for permission to file the appeal as a pauper was allowed by this Court on 14th January 1977 as per order on C.M.P. No. 9088 of 1975. She died on 3rd April 1977. Her legal representatives are Respondents 1 to 6.