CHINNAMMAL Vs. M RAMASAMY NAICKER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal has arisen from the judgment and decree of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kancheepuram, made in A.S. No.21 of 1987 confirming the judgment of the learned Additional District Munsif, Kancheepuram, made in O.S. No.889 of 1980.

(2.) ONE Lokanayaki Ammal, filed a suit seeking for a declaration of her title to the plaint schedule property for consequential permanent injunction alleging that the house property bearing door Nos.86 and 87, Sengalaneerodai Street, Kancheepuram, originally belonged to her husband M.Kuppusamy Naicker; that he executed a registered settlement deed dated 20.3.1951 giving the said property to her absolutely, that ever since she has been in possession and enjoyment of both the houses and paying the property tax; that she and her husband were living in the said house; that in 1977, the plaintiff sold away the premises door No.87 and continued to live in house No.86; that the first defendant was the brother's son to the plaintiff; that he was living in Peravur village; that subsequently he came to Kanchipuram about 3 years ago and started the business by living in another house in the opposite row; that in November, 1975, the plaintiff became seriously ill and he executed a registered will bequeathing the two items to her husband; that subsequently the plaintiff recovered from her illness; that in January 1977, the plaintiff's husband became sick; that the plaintiff also was ill at that time and she was under great mental strain and anxiety in view of the illness of her husband; that the plaintiff was an illiterate lady; that the first defendant began to visit the plaintiff's house pretending to attend on her and her husband; that the plaintiff and her husband were bed-ridden; that it was on that time, the premises No.87 was sold for medical expenses and debts; that taking advantage of the old age and sickness the first defendant manoeuvered to obtain the signature of the plaintiff in some papers without disclosing the nature of the document; that he would maintain the plaintiff and her husband and the signature were taken stating that it was the provisions stipulation and a condition for the maintenance of the plaintiff and her husband, that the nature of the document also represented that the signature was for the sale of premises No.87 to Chinnammal; that subsequently the plaintiff came to know that the first defendant played a fraud and obtained the settlement deed of the only property namely premises No.86 with conditions regarding maintenance of the plaintiff by him; that the first defendant did not even cared to maintain the plaintiff; that the plaintiff came to know about the fraudulent act of the 1st defendant when she obtained copies of document and found to her dismay that it was a settlement deed of her only property; that the settlement deed dated 27.1.1977 was void and it was vitiated by fraud and misrepresentation; that by way of abundant caution, the plaintiff had executed a revocation deed on 1.9.1977; that the said settlement deed was not binding on her and it was non-est; that there was absolutely no necessity for the plaintiff to execute a settlement of her only property to the 1st defendant especially when her husband was living with her; that the plaintiff issued a notice on 8.5.1978 to the last defendant calling upon him to desist from interfering with the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of the premises in door No.86 to which there was no reply; that on the other hand, the plaintiff learnt that the 1st defendant was purported to enter into an agreement of sale; Neither of the defendants have got any manner of title or possession in the suit property; the plaintiff died during the pendency of the suit; the second plaintiff who was her husband and her only legal heir has right to sue has devolved on him; that her husband Kuppusamy Naicker was her only legal heir; the 2nd plaintiff, Kuppusamy Naicker executed a registered will on 20.9.1977 in a sound and disposing state of mind bequeathing the suit property to the 3rd plaintiff; that on the death of the 2nd plaintiff, the will came into effect; that the 3rd plaintiff was entitled to the suit property and hence it has to be declared that the 3rd plaintiff is entitled to the suit property with consequential permanent injunction.

(3.) THIS second appeal is an outcome of the dismissal of an appeal filed by the appellant herein whose suit was dismissed by the trial Court. Both the Courts below agreeing with the contentions of the respondents have negatived the reliefs which has culminated in this second appeal.