ANITHA VIJAYA KUMAR Vs. E.M.ASHA RICHARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 2nd defendant is the appellant. The 1st respondent filed a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession in respect of the suit property. She also prayed for a declaration that the Will executed by Sarojini Williams in favour of Vijayakumar, husband of the appellant herein was null and void. She also prayed for a further declaration that the Settlement Deed dtd. 4/12/2007 executed by the deceased 1st defendant Vijayakumar in favour of the appellant herein in respect of the suit property was null and void.

(2.) The Trial Court decreed the suit in part granting declaration of title and possession in respect of the suit property in favour of the 1st respondent. As far as the 2nd prayer in the suit, seeking declaration that the Will executed by Sarojini Willams in favour of 1st defendant was null and void is concerned, the Court below did not go into that question on the ground that the original Will allegedly executed in favour of 1st defendant/Vijayakumar was not produced and consequently, suit was dismissed in respect of the 2nd prayer. As far as the 3rd prayer seeking declaration that the Settlement Deed dtd. 4/12/2007 executed by 1st defendant viz., Vijayakumar in favour of the appellant herein in respect of the suit property was null and void is concerned, the Court below had granted a qualified declaration that the said document was null and void in so far the suit property bearing Door No.41 and New Door No.14 is concerned. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the 2nd defendant in the suit has come up by way of this first appeal.

(3.) According to the 1st respondent/plaintiff, the suit house property was originally belongs to one Lilly Chelladurai who purchased it on 7/2/1965. During her lifetime, she executed a Registered Will dtd. 17/10/1980 bequeathing the suit property in favour of her daughter Sarojini Williams. After death of said Lilly Chelladurai, Sarojini Williams became absolute owner of the suit property and mutation of revenue records had taken place in her favour. The deceased 1st defendant/husband of the appellant herein was the only son of Sarojini Williams. From the childhood onward he has been very adamant and disobedient and led a wayward life. The mother and power agent of the 1st respondent viz., D.Pamela Moses is the daughter of Sarojini Williams's elder sister Leela Damat. D.Pamela Moses has been very affectionate with her younger maternal aunt Sarojini Williams from her childhood onwards. It was also alleged that son of Sarojini Williams and late deceased 1st defendant/Vijayakumar had become drug addict and he used to quarrel with his parents for the purpose of getting money. It was also alleged that Vijayakumar used to assault his parents and police complaints were given against him and finally in Crime No.1583 of 1995 and finally he was convicted and sent to jail. It was also alleged that the deceased 1st defendant and appellant herein tortured Sarojini Williams and the only person who consoled her was the 1st respondent's mother D.Pamela Moses. The 1st respondent further averred in the plaint that during her lifetime, Sarojini Williams executed a Unregistered Will dtd. 20/7/2004 marked as Ex.A25 in favour of D.Pamela Moses bequeathing the suit property to her. As the appellant and her husband namely deceased 1st defendant threatened Sarojini Williams to cancel the Will, she executed another Registered Will dtd. 18/10/2005 in favour of the 1st respondent's mother D.Pamela Moses under Ex.A26. She died on 28/4/2007. It was also averred in the plaint that the appellant and her husband deceased 1st defendant neglected Sarojini Williams during the evening of her life by refusing food, treatment etc., and it was mother of 1st respondent D.Pamela Moses, who had taken care of Sarojini Williams by engaging a services of home nurse. Subsequent to the death of Sarojini Williams, the mother of the 1st respondent viz., D.Pamela Moses executed a Registered Settlement dtd. 4/9/2007 in favour of the 1st respondent/plaintiff under Ex.A11. Thus, the plaintiff has become owner of the suit property.