DURAISAMI REDDIAR Vs. SAROJA AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Second appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs in 0. S. No. 1906 of 1973 in the court of the District Munsiff. Vridbachalam the suit properties belonged to one Ramaswami Reddiar. His first wife died about thirty years before suit leaving her only daughter,, Andal, who is married to one Narayanaswami Reddiar. The said Ramaswami Reddiar married one Jagadambal about 27 years prior to the suit. Jagadambal died on 6th April, 1968. She had two children but both of them predeceased her. Ramaswami Reddiar himself died on 20th September, 1973. Ramaswami Reddiar executed a settlement deed on 27th January, 1966 marked as Ex. A. 1 under which there is a description of the properties in three schedules. It would be necessary to go into the terms of the settlement deed later. But. according to the plaintiffs. the said Ramaswarni Reddiar had handed ever possession of the properties settled there under to Jagadambal's brother and sister. On 13th August. 1968, there is what purports to be a revocation deed of the said settlement by the same Ramaswami Reddiar. The plaintiff claimed that the said revocation deed was ineffective and void, as there was no power to revoke the earlier settlement, Ex. A. 1. The plaintiff's case was that the said Ramaswami Reddiar, married the first defendant in March, 1973, when he was more than 69 years of age and had brought about Ex. B 5 under the undue influence of the first defendant. The plaintiffs, therefore, filed the suit for declaration and for restraining defendants 1 and 2 from taking possession of the properties. The second defendant had in his favour what purports to be a sale deed dated 7th August, 1972, marked as Ex. B. 4.

(2.) The first defendant's case was that the document Ex. A. I was only a will and that it could be revoked at any time and that the subsequent transactions are all valid. The second defendant adopted the same stand.

(3.) The trial court went into the question of the nature of the document and came to the conclusion that Ex. A. 1, the original of which has been marked as Ex. B. 1, was a settlement and not a will. He, therefore, held that the plaintiffs were entitled to the relief asked for.