SARGUNAM AMMAL Vs. JAYARAMA PADAYACHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE second plaintiff is the appellant. She came on record as the legal representative of her deceased husband, who filed the suit for partition and separate possession for her 1/4th share in the suit properties. THE properties belonged originally to the joint family of one Natesan Padayachi and his four sons. Natesan died in about 1940. His eldest son Narayanaswami died in 1945 and his son is the first defendant. THE second defendant is another son of Natesa by a name Ramalingam. THE first plaintiff was the third son of Natesan and he died after the institution of the suit on 15.9.1981. THE fourth son of Natesan was Govindan, who died in 1970. His sons are defendants 3 and 4 and his wife is the fifth defendant. THE family owned about 130 acres of India. THE first plaintiff executed a settlement deed on 1.9.1984, marked as Ex. B.1 giving his undivided share to the first defendant to be enjoyed by him for his life and the remainder to be taken by his children absolutely. It was recited in the document that the first defendant shall maintain the first plaintiff and his wife, the second plaintiff during their lifetime. In 1972, the coparceners entered into a partition under Ex. B2 dated 14.1.1972 dividing all the the properties in which the first defendant got an extent of about 55.80 acres including the share of the first plaintiff, which was given to him under the settlement deed dated 1.9.1964.

(2.) IN the plaint the relevant portion reads as follows:? ?While so plaintiff was induced into executing a document on 1.9.84 purporting to be a deed of settlement in favour of 1st defendant. He was induced to do so in the belief that the settle will be faithful to plaintiff and will treat him properly. It was not intended to be effective at all. The settlement was never accepted or acted upon. It was not duly attested. Under these circumstances the settlement is non est and it has no value at all.? The plaint also made a reference to the partition of 14.1.1972 and raised a plea that it was wholly void. On the basis of the same the plaintiff prayed for partition and separate possession of 1/4th share.

(3.) IN the circumstances, we have no doubt that the facts of the case prove that the document Ex. B1 dated 1.9.1964 was executed in consideration of the first defendant agreeing to marry the second plaintiff's sister. He married the sister of the second plaintiff soon after the document Ex. B.1.