VERONICA THOMAS RAJKUMAR Vs. JOSEPH JOHN PETER SANDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A.S.No.1104 of 1987: This appeal arises out of the common judgment and decree in O.S.No.6331 of 1983, dated 21.8.1986, decreeing the plaintiff's suit for rectification of the settlement deed, dated 27.8.1981 as per the agreement dated 1.6.1982 relating to the house in door No.23, Periyapalli Street, Raja Annamalai Puram, Madras. Unsuccessful defendant is the appellant.

(2.) TRANSFERRED A.S.No.1120 of 2001: This appeal arises out of dismissal of the suit in O.S.No.415 of 1983 (common judgment) dated 21.8.1986 for declaration that the agreement, dated 1.6.1982 was obtained from the plaintiff Veronica under threat and coercion and also for permanent injunction.

(3.) AGGRIEVED over the findings of the trial Court, the defendant has preferred these appeals. Assailing the findings of the aaaaaaaaaaaaatrial Court, the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant has mainly relied upon the circumstance of filing the suit during the life time of father Sandy. The main contention of the appellant is that, if really mistake crept-in in the description of the property as contended by the plaintiff, father would have definitely executed the rectification deed even during his life time. Taking serious exception to the approach of the trial Court, the learned counsel further submitted that the trial Court having found Ex.A-6 - Unregistered rectification deed, a fabricated one, wholly fell in error in granting the decree for rectification of the deed which is an equitable relief. The learned counsel submitted that the definite intention of the father, supported by the subsequent conduct indicates that he always intended to settle the bigger house (door No.23) in favour of the defendant. It is further submitted that the relief under Sec.26 of the Specific Relief Act - Rectification of the documents, is not available for the gift deeds since the document is more in the nature of a unilateral document and not a bilateral one. Seriously attacking Ex.A-3/agreement, the learned counsel submitted the trial Court erred in presuming the genuineness of the contents merely because of the admission of the signature by the defendant. It is submitted that though nomenclature of Ex.A-3 is termed as an agreement, the recitals are to the definite effect of creating and extinguishing right which necessarily needs registration under Sec.17(1)(b) of the Indian Registration Act or otherwise Ex.A-3 is inadmissible in evidence. Submitting that the suit as framed is not maintainable, the learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the various decisions in support of his contentions.