S SAMIYAPPAN Vs. N SUBRAMANIAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants, whose request for a declaration that a settlement deed marked as Ex. A3 before the trial Court is invalid and for consequential prayers on being rejected by both the Courts below have brought forth this second appeal.

(2.) The short facts which lead the plaintiffs to file the said suit are that the suit property belonged to the plaintiffs by a partition deed dated 18.9.1952 and they have been in enjoyment of the same. By a lease deed dated 22.6.1994 which is marked as Ex. A1, a lease was executed for a period of 30 years for conducting various works of Varavalipattu Magalir Manram and the suit property was leased out to the first defendant temple for Re.1 per annum and accordingly it was carried on. It was represented in the year 2003 by defendants 2 and 3 that A. K. Venkatasamy who was representing the first defendant all along under the lease deed was not associated as he was in the past and they have insisted for transfer of the lease in favour of the first defendant and on their representation, the first plaintiff put the signature and the second plaintiff put the thumb impression in the settlement deed Ex. A3. The first plaintiff was 81 years old who was not educated well and the second plaintiff was affected with paralytic attack. Since they are having confidence on defendants 2 and 3, they signed the document without reading the contents of the said settlement deed. But, it was the fraudulent act committed by defendants 2 and 3 and hence the said document should be declared as invalid and consequential injunction should be granted to the plaintiffs.

(3.) The suit was resisted by the defendants stating that the first defendant viz. the Adi Parasakthi Educational, Medical and Cultural trust, is the Public Religious and Charitable Trust having its head office at Melmaravathur and there are Magaliar Manrams throughout the State. A request was made by the wife of the second defendant through an application for functioning Varavalipattu Manram and on the basis of which, it was allowed to be constituted at the place in question situated at Tiruppur. At the earliest instance, the plaintiffs came forward to give the entire suit property as gift to the first defendant temple consisting of 7800 sq. ft. in the year 1982 to construct Sakthi peedam But in the year 2003, they required 120 sq. ft. from the said 7800 sq. ft. for the purpose of selling pooja materials. The first defendant admitted the same and registered a settlement deed for 7680 sq. ft. While the matter stood thus, in view of the query in the Audit side, the lease deed was felt necessary and it was executed on 22.6.1994 under Ex. A1. It is not correct to state that initially it was only executed in favour of one A. K. Venkatasami and subsequently it was executed only in favour of the first defendant who was represented by the said A. K. Venkatasami. While the matter stood thus, the plaintiffs came forward to execute the settlement deed in favour of the first defendant to carry on the functions of Manram in the year 2003 whereby they wanted to put an end to the lease deed. Hence, Ex. A3 settlement deed was prepared and after going through the document, the first and second plaintiffs made signature and affixed thumb impression respectively. The settlement deed was also a registered one. The plaintiffs paid part of the registration fee and since it was found that deficit court fee was paid, they came forward to state that since the first defendant was the beneficiary and apart from that since it is a charitable trust, 50% of the fee may be remitted and hence they have paid the same. The case of the plaintiffs that there was a default committed by defendants 2 and 3 intentionally and after giving property by way of settlement deed, now they came forward to state that they want to change the name from A. K. Venkatasami to the first plaintiff and hence the suit must be dismissed.