DANDAPANI MUDALIAR Vs. VENKATARAYA MUDALIAR @ THALINJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present Second Appeal has been brought by the Defendant against whom both the Courts below decreed the suit by agreeing with the case of the Plaintiff.

(2.) BRIEF facts leading to the present Second Appeal is given as under:- It is a fight between the father and his son. The father was the Plaintiff before the trial Court, the appellant was the Defendant. The Plaintiff/father being the owner of the suit property covered in the donation deed dated 9.7.1954, donated the same to the Defendant/Appellant, by specifically mentioning a recital in the said donation deed that he should take care of the Plaintiff/father and his wife in their old age and also to take care of the welfare of the grand daughters and sons of the Defendant/Appellant. At the time of executing the donation deed the Defendant/Appellant was a minor and after attaining majority the Plaintiff/Respondent averred in the plaint that till 1979 the Defendant/Appellant was maintaining the Plaintiff and his wife and after 1979, he neglected to maintain them. Besides that he was trying to alienate the suit property to third-party and he is also a man of leading luxurious life. The Plaintiff/Respondent also advised the Defendant not to alienate the suit property, but he failed to heed the request of the Plaintiff/Respondent and further attempted to sell the suit property. Therefore, the Plaintiff apprehending that the suit property would be completely obliterated by the Defendant without leaving anything to his children and as the Defendant also miserably failed to take care of the Plaintiff and his wife, finally he was compelled to revoke the Notarial deed dated 9.7.1954 executed by him in favour of the defendant, by way of registered revocation deed dated 7.7.1980. Even after the execution of the revocation deed revoking the donation deed, when the defendant/Appellant was informed by the Plaintiff/Respondent herein, again he did not care for the same and further attempted to alienate the suit property, as a result the father Plaintiff/Respondent issued a notice dated 27.05.1996 calling upon his son the Appellant/Defendant to desist from further alienating the suit property. Again finding no response, the Plaintiff was constrained to file the suit seeking for a declaration that the revocation deed dated 7.7.1980 executed by the Plaintiff is legally enforceable one and it binds the Defendant, and for a consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the Defendant and his men, agents and servants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property.

(3.) IN view of the claim and denial made by both the parties, the trial Court took up the matter for trial by framing the following issues:-