MUTHUSAMY Vs. RAMATHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff is the revision petitioner. He filed the suit for the Relief of declaration of the plaintiff's title and for consequential permanent injunction for restraining the defendants from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. THE suit properties consist of both agricultural lands situated in different survey numbers in different villages and the house property bearing Door NO.455 in Thungavi Village and vacant site in the same village measuring 2092 Sq.ft.,

(2.) ACCORDING to the plaintiff he is the one of the sons of the first defendant and the first defendant and his wife Subbathaal are having three sons and two daughters and one of the sons and one of the daughters died leaving behind their LRs. The mother died in the year 2001 and after the death of the mother he father came to the house of the petitioner and he was made to stay in his own house and the petitioner and his family members were looking after him and his needs and while so he executed a settlement deed on 1.10.2002 in his favour in respect of the entire suit properties out of his love and affection and he was also handed over the possession of the suit properties to be enjoyed by him absolutely and since the date of the settlement deed, he has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties by raising crops, by paying kist, by effecting mutation of revenue records etc., On coming to know about the same, the second defendant who is one of the sisters of Muthusamy and the defendants 3 and 4 who are her sons and the other defendants 5 and 6 who are the grand children of the first defendant have colluded together and forcibly obtained the deed of cancellation of the settlement deed from the first defendant, which is followed by Police complaints against each other etc., and the first defendant along with the other defendants have also attempted to cause interference to the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment o the suit property. Therefore he filed the I.A.No:57 of 2003 under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC for granting an order of interim injunction against the defendants.

(3.) ACCORDING to the plaintiff, the first defendant has no right after executing the settlement deed, whereas according to the defendants since the alleged settlement deed has been obtained by fraud, misrepresentation and having been executed by the first defendant without knowing the nature of the document, no right flows from the same in favour of the plaintiff. In such circumstances, the burden is on the plaintiff, who is the dominating person to prove that there was fair play in the transaction and he is bound to prove the voluntary nature of the execution by the first defendant who was 90 years old at the time of execution, particularly when the same is sought to exclude the other sons and daughters and legal heirs.