RAJAGOPAL Vs. KRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.654 of 2007 on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Karur. The suit is for permanent injunction against the defendants. The short facts of the case go to show that the plaintiff, the owner of the suit property, settled the same in favour of his wife Lakshmi Ammal on 10.07.1998 by means of a registered sale deed. The third respondent is the wife of the second respondent and the second respondent is the son of first respondent. The first respondent is brother of the above said Lashmi Ammal. By means of a registered Will dated 14.12.2000, the said Lakshmi Ammal bequeathed the suit properties in favour of the second defendant. Thereafter, she died on 10.11.2001. In the plaint, there is no allegation with regard to the settlement, that is to say, whether it was obtained by coercion, fraud, etc., by relatives of wife of the plaintiff.

(2.) THE trial was started, witnesses were examined and when the case was posted for arguments, the plaintiff filed two applications viz., one for amending the plaint to incorporate a prayer that the settlement deed is null and void. The petition was hotly contested by the second defendant and the learned District Munsif dismissed the application by observing that the relief prayed for by the petitioner is time barred and hence, the amendment application could not be allowed. In consequence, the Court below has dismissed the application for reopening the case.

(3.) THE settlement deed was executed by the plaintiff on 10.07.1998. In the plaint, he has not been pleaded anything as regards the circumstances whether he was subjected to coercion nor he was compelled to sign and put his thumb impression in the settlement deed. The suit was filed on 12.10.2007 and the written statement was filed on 16.11.2007. Even on the date of filing of the suit, the relief as regards the settlement got time barred since it was above three years, it is contended.