R KANNIAMMAL Vs. PREMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff is the appellant.

(2.) The suit filed by the plaintiff is one for declaration that she is entitled to the suit property and for recovery of possession.

(3.) The case of the plaintiff is that the 3rd defendant was her husband and as there was difference of opinion from the year 1977, they were living separately and the marriage was also dissolved as per the caste custom, in the year 1980 and since that time, the plaintiff has been living separately. The suit property is the absolute property of the plaintiff and she was in possession and enjoyment of the same. The 3rd defendant with an intention to grab the same, has created a gift deed on 24.9.1978, as if the plaintiff wanted to give the suit property to his minor son Kannan and presented the said documents before the Joint Sub Registrar, for compulsory registration, in which, a notice was sent to the plaintiff to appear before the Sub Registrar on 20.12.1978 and the plaintiff had given a statement that she had not executed the settlement deed in favour of her minor son and the proceedings before the Sub Registrar was over. The 3rd defendant was working in the Registration Department and he had preferred an appeal before the District Registrar and by using his influence, a notice was issued to the plaintiff for her appearance on 6.6.1979, before the District Registrar, as if the gift deed was executed by her on 24.9.1978. Since the matter had already been enquired into and became to rest, by the proceedings before the Sub Registrar on 20.12.1978, the plaintiff kept quiet and did not attend the enquiry on 6.6.1979. But, the 3rd defendant, by misuse of his position, as Sub Registrar, got the Gift Deed dated 24.9.1978 registered. The minor son did not derive any title under the gift deed. The plaintiff has not executed a Gift Deed either on 4.12.1978 or on 20.12.1978 and there was no necessity for the same. By making use of the alleged gift deed, the 3rd defendant, as a guardian for the minor, had sold the suit property to the defendants 1 and 2 and the same is not valid and the defendants 1 and 2 did not derive any right in the suit property and the sale deed is also not valid and binding upon the plaintiff. The defendants 1 and 2 on the strength of the fraudulent document obtained from the 3rd defendant have been arranging to give trouble to the plaintiff from the I Week of April 1982 and a notice dated 10.4.1982 was issued by the plaintiff to the defendants 1 and 2 and they came to know of the facts, refused to receive the same. But, however, the 3rd defendant received the notice on 12.4.1982 and has not chosen to give any reply. After the receipt of the notice, at the instigation of the 3rd defendant, the defendants 1 and 2 have trespassed into the suit property and took possession. Hence, the suit.