K NAGARATHINAM Vs. K RAJAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendants in O. S. No. 605 of 1982, District Munsifs court, Nagarcoil, who are mother and son, have filed this second appeal against the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge, Nagarcoil, reversing that of the learned District Munsif and granting a decree in favour of the plaintiff declaring that she is entitled to one -third share in the suit property and directing a division of the same in addition to ascertainment of her share in the income.

(2.) THE suit property admittedly belonged to the mother of the first appellant and her sister, the respondent. After the death of the mother in 1976, the father of the first appellant and the respondent executed a gift deed on 27. 6. 1979 in favour of the second appellant giving the entire property to him. THE said gift deed was attested by the respondent. Alleging that she was not aware of the gift deed until the defendants put forward the same, in reply to a demand for partition made by her after the death of the father, the respondent filed the suit, out of which this appeal arises, for a declaration that the gift deed was not valid and binding with reference to her one-third share and for division of other property. THE respondent also alleged that her signature was obtained in the gift deed in a fraudulent manner without informing her of the nature and contents of the document.

(3.) IN spite of the said decision of the Privy Council, there are some cases decided by this court in which attestation has been held to bind the attestor on the basis of the law of estoppel - evidence Ramaswami gounder v. Ananthapadmana-bha Iyer (1971) 84 L. W. 176; Jayarama Chandra Iyer v. Thulasi Ammal (1975) 88 L. W. 549 and Narayanasami Padayachi v. Sambanda Mudaliar (1977) 90 L. W. 37 (S. N.) But in all these cases it was found 6n the /facts that the person who attested the document was a consenting party.