K RANI Vs. POORANI AMMAL DIED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal is directed against the judgment of the II Additional District Judge, Pondicherry, in A.S.No.103 of 1987 reversing that of the II Additional District Munsif, Pondicherry, in O.S.No.1397 of 1986. The plaintiff is the appellant in the above second appeal.

(2.) THE above second appeal was dismissed by this Court on 31.8.1999. However, on appeal by the respondents herein in civil appeal by the respondents herein Civil Appeal No.4376 of 2000, the Supreme Court remitted the appeal on the ground that no question of law had been framed as required under Sec.100, C.P.C.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant contends that there was no evidence to sustain the plea of fraudulent misuse of the signature of the first defendant. The first defendant who had alleged fraud had not chosen to get into the witness box. It was only a power of attorney who had deposed on the side of the defendant. It is further contended that the first defendant had not disputed the thumb impression in the document. Therefore, the reasonings of the appellate Court in reversing the judgment of the trial Court were unsatisfactory. LEARNED counsel for the appellant also commented on the observations of the appellate Court that the suit property being the only property of the first defendant, the plaintiff has not satisfactorily explained as to why the first defendant wanted to dispose of the property. The appellate Judge has also made certain observations without any legal basis such as that it was common ground that women would seldom like to sell away their property. Though the defendants have raised a plea of an equitable mortgage by deposit of title deeds, there was absolutely no proof of the same. The further finding of learned appellate Judge that the agreement was penal in nature and the same was illegal.