ERAYAMANGALAM RANGANATHAM PILLAI Vs. KOMALAMMAL; R KAMALAKANNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant herein challenges the Judgment and decree, dated 25.01.2010, passed in A.S. No.83 of 2008 on the file of the Additional District Court/FTC No.II, Poonamallee, whereby, the judgment and decree, dated 17.06.2008, made in O.S. No.105 of 2004 by the Sub Court, Poonamallee, came to be confirmed.

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the plaintiff/Trust filed the suit to cancel the registered deed of sale, dated 07.10.1994, executed by Jegadambal in favour of the 2nd defendant and for recovery of vacant possession of the 'B' Schedule property which forms part of 'A' schedule property and further, to grant permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from in any manner interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the 'C' Schedule. He highlighted the case of the plaintiff/Trust by stating that the owner of the properties in question-Jegadambal, while she was in a sound state of mind, executed a registered Will dated 15.06.1992 and bequeathed the suit properties in favour of the plaintiff's Trust, but, later on, when the said Jegadambal was at the end of her life, by taking advantage of her custody with them, the defendants played fraud on her and got the properties in question sold in their favour through the alleged sale deed dated 07.10.1994. According to the learned counsel, not even the sale consideration was paid by the defendants to the said Jegadamabl. While so, the trial court, without properly sifting the evidence, simply believed the version of the defendants despite the clear evidence in the form of Ex.A1 Will executed by none else than Jegadambal, bequeathing the properties in favour of the Trust, and unfortunately dismissed the suit with costs. The lower appellate court also simply endorsed the erroneous findings of the trial court. While elaborating the submissions, he would submit that the authenticity of the sale deed under Ex.B1 dated 07.10.1994 itself is under clouds since it does not contain any reference at all about the cancellation of the Will dated 15.06.1992 and in regard to such aspect, both the courts below did not even bother to take note of the crucial aspect that at the old age of 80, when the testator was under care and fiduciary control of the defendants/respondents, there was every possibility of the defendants getting the sale deed under Ex.B1 executed and thereby, the element of fraud in the transaction cannot be ruled out. Both the courts below totally misguided themselves while considering the just claim of the plaintiff, resulting in perverse findings and erroneous conclusions, hence, this Court may have to interfere with the concurrent judgments.

(3.) Heard the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.