CHIDAMBARAM PILLAI Vs. MUTHAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIRUMALAI Vadivu Ammal filed a suit in the Sub Court , tirunelveli in O. S. No. 447 of 1979 to set aside a registered deed of settlement dated 23. 1. 1975 which she herself had executed in favour of her brother's daughter, the 1st defendant in the suit. The 2nd defendant, 2nd respondent is the husband of the 1st defendant, 1st respondent. She sought cancellation of the said deed on the ground that the respondents misrepresented that she was executing only a power of attorney for collecting the arrears of rent from the tenants. According to her, thus, the respondents exercised undue influence and fraudulently got the said document executed on the above misrepresentation.

(2.) THE defendants/respondents denied the plea of misrepresentation, undue influence and fraud, denied that there were any arrears due from the tenants and stated that there was no necessity to execute a power deed. THEy came out with a positive case that the 1st defendant/1st respondent was brought up by the plaintiff, that the plaintiff gave her in marriage to the 2nd defendant/2nd respondent and met the marriage expenses. She, according to the defendants/respondents, executed the settlement deed knowing fully that she was transferring her interest in the property to her brother's daughter i. e. . , to say, 1st defendant/ 1st respondent, V has since died. Her heirs and legal representatives are on record as per order of court dated 15. 4. 1987 in C. M. P. 14184 of 1987 in A. S. 231 of 1981.

(3.) IN the Calcutta case Smt. Sonia Parshini v. Sheikh moula Baksha, A. I. R. 1955 Cal. 17. as they have stated in the judgment,'the real question between the parties was whether the plaintiff appellant was entitled to any kind of protection under the law by reason of the helplessness of her state on account of illiteracy and ignorance and secondly if she was so entitled what corresponding burden was cast on the respondent who dealt with her'.