SUSAI Vs. SOWRIAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree, dated 22.10.1992, made in A.S.No.164 of 1992, on the file of the Additional Sub Court, Cuddalore.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are as follows: O.S.No.571 of 1984 on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Kallakurich THE respondent/plaintiff Sowriammal filed a suit against the appellants and the gist of the plaint is that the suit property belongs to one Antony Ammal, w/o.Pitchai Sowri Gounder, that the appellants-defendants are children of Antony Ammal. THE said Antony Ammal executed a gift deed in favour of the plaintiff, from then onwards the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the property and is paying kist and taxes for the said property, that during the second week of September, 1984, the defendants attempted to grab the property and therefore the plaintiff filed the above suit for declaration and permanent injunction. After filing of the suit, the defendants forcibly evicted the plaintiff from the suit property and therefore the plaintiff filed an amended plaint for recovery of possession and mandatory injunction.

(3.) A perusal of the evidence of Antony Ammal would show that she had misunderstanding with her daughter-in-law and therefore she was residing with her sister's daughter, the plaintiff herein. Even though in the chief examination she has stated that Ex.A-1 document was obtained by playing fraud on her, during cross examination, she has admitted her signature in Ex.A-1 and she has also admitted that she has executed a deed and registered the same in favour of her own sister's daughter and his son-in-law Chinnappan and one Poovathai Udayar have singed as witnesses and she went to the Registrar's office and admitted the execution of document and when she was questioned by the Registrar whether she has executed the document, she has answered in the affirmative and thus admitted the execution of the documents willfully by her. The said Antony Ammal has not stated any reason as to how P.W.1, the plaintiff cheated her in getting the document executed in his favour. If really Ex.A-1, document was obtained by playing fraud upon Antony Ammal, the said Antony Ammal after reaching her children and started living with them, she would have told her children about the execution of the document and she would have taken some action to cancel the said document. But, D.W.2 Antony Ammal has not taken any step either to cancel the document or tell the truth to her children. Therefore the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/defendants that Ex.A-1 document is an outcome of a fraud played by the plaintiff on D.W.2 Antony Ammal is not acceptable.