SINGARAVELU Vs. UDAYAKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Second Appeal was brought by the Plaintiff in whose favour the judgment and decree granted by the Trial Court having been reversed by the First Appellate Court complaining that the First Appellate Court ought not to have interdicted the conclusion reached by the Trial Court on acceptable reasons, based on sufficient evidence produced by the Plaintiff before the Trial Court. this Court at the time of entertaining the Second Appeal framed two substantial questions of law for consideration and they are as follows:

(2.) (i) The Plaintiff/Appellant herein has originally filed a Suit for injunction against his own wife-1st Defendant and the 2nd Defendant-the brother of the 1st Defendant. The Plaintiff/Appellant herein has purchased the superstructure with leasehold right from one Sundarambal, another lessee of the same suit property. The 3rd Defendant is Arulmighu Agatheeswarar Swamy Temple, represented by its Executive Officer, Vellipalayam, Nagapattinam Town.

(3.) (i) Opposing the said prayer, in support of the impugned judgment and decree passed by the FIRST APPELLATE COURT, the Learned Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent herein submitted that the Plaintiff/Appellant herein after matrimonial dispute, has driven out his wife the 1st Defendant. Therefore, the Plaintiff's/Appellant's wife has come to her parents' house and after several mediations, no fruitful response came from the Plaintiff/Appellant, hence, the 1st Defendant was constrained to file a Suit for maintenance in O.S. No. 252/1998. Though the Suit was contested between them, during the pendency of the Suit for maintenance, the Plaintiff/Appellant on his own wanted to settle the matter by calling upon the elders of the family and thereupon, when a compromise was reached to give up the leasehold right of the suit property in favour of the Plaintiff's wife-1st Defendant, the Plaintiff also in the presence of the ciders of both the families have executed a Release Deed-Ex. B7 releasing the right of superstructure and also the said land in an effort to discharge the charge on the maintenance. On this basis, when Ex. B7-Release Deed dated 30.8.2000 was prepared, the attestors-DWs2 & 3 who have attested the documents, also finally asked the Plaintiff/Appellant herein to finally agree for transfer of legal hold rights in the suit property through the execution of the Release Deed-Ex. B7 dated 30.8.2000. On accepting the advise tendered by the common elders, the Plaintiff/Appellant herein had once again taken two more days to decide as to whether he should take her back home or to execute the Release Deed releasing the leasehold rights in the suit property. Finally, after two days the Plaintiff/Appellant declining to take back the 1st Defendant, accepted to execute the Release Deed-Ex. B7 dated 30.8.2000 discharging all the charges towards the payment of maintenance, Accordingly, on 2.9.2000, when the Plaintiff accepting the Release Deed had signed the document, the other attesting witnesses DW2 & DW3 have seen him signing the document-Ex. B7. Therefore, it was not open to the Plaintiff/Appellant to make out a case for the simple reason that Ex. B7-Release Deed dated 30.8.2000 having been already signed by the attesting witnesses on 30.8.2000, the signature of the Plaintiff was appended with the date 2.9.2000, should not have been a ground to disbelieve the execution of the Release Deed.