SUKUMARAN Vs. MAHALAKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sugumaran, the appellant herein is the defendent in the suit. Mahalakskshmi the respondent/ plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and recovery of possession of the suit property. The trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the pliantiff. Aggrieved by the trial Court order, the defendant filed an appeal before the lower appellate Court which inturn confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court. Challenging the judgment and decree passed by both the Courts below, this second appeal has been filed before this Court.

(2.) According to the plaintiff, Ex.A1 and Ex A2, the settlement deeds were executed by the appellant/defendant, the father in favour of the plaintiff/respondent, the daughter on 01.02 1988 and 07.09. 1988 respectively, settling the properties in her favour. After taking possession of the properties by virtue of Ex.A1 and Ex.A2, the defendant had beert managing the properties on behalf of the plaintiff. One of the properties was let out and the rental amount were periodically sent by the father to the plaintiff. Whendhe defendant's father stopped making payment of rental arrears, the plaintiff sent a notice demanding the amount for which the defendant sent a reply making false allegations, as if the said settlement deeds have been revoked. Since the alleged revocation deed dated 01.11.1989 was not valid, the plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of title in respect of the suit properties and for possesion of the suit.

(3.) According to the defendant Ex. A 1 and Ex. A 2, the settlement deeds were already cancelled by him by revocation deed and hence they are invalid documents. Moreover, the said settlement deeds were not acted upon and not given effect to since the possession of properties was not handed over to the plaintiff. As such the plaintiff would not be entiled to the relief sought for in the suit. Furthermore, the said Ex. A1 and A2 being sham documents were, already cancelled by virtue of revocation deed dated 01.11.1989.