(1.) In the settlement deed executed by the appellant plaintiff in favour of the 3rd defendant vitiated either by coercion or undue influence or both ? This is the main question to be decided in this appeal. The trial court held that it is not and upheld the settlement. Hence the appeal by the plaintiff.
(2.) The plaintiff is the widowed younger sister of the 1st defendant aged 45 years on the date of suit. She became a widow at the age of 18 years, just two years after her marriage and has no issues. On the date of the suit the 1st defendant was a doctor working in Government service. Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 are respectively the wife and son of the 1st defendant. The plaintiff lost her father in 1975. She has got five other sisters who were all married before the death of her father and all are well settled in life. After the death of the father the widowed mother and plaintiff were living under the direct control and authority of the 1st defendant who was the only male member in the family and the only elder to whom she could look forward as her protector in life.
(3.) The suit property is 20 cents of land with compound walls and number of buildings therein including a residential building and a well. It is hounded on two sides by important public roads and is situated in an important locality in the Quillon Municipality and is admittedly a very valuable one. It belonged to the father of plaintiff and 1st defendant. According to the plaintiff her father wanted to give the plaint schedule property to her to make her at least financially safe. However before he could transfer the property to her, he died in 1975. In deference to the desire of the father, all the legal heirs including 1st defendant executed Ext. A-l, joint release deed in her favour after father's death. Thereafter she is the absolute owner in possession of the suit properties. As near relations of the plaintiff, her mother, 1st defendant and his family were residing in the house in the plaint schedule property with her leave and licence.