D VEERAMANI Vs. D SAKUNTHALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant/plaintiff is the son of the respondent/defendant. Suit has been laid for declaration and permanent injunction with respect to the suit property which forms part of the cancellation deed dated 03.02.2010 executed in favour of the appellant.

(2.) The suit property was originally purchased in the name of the appellant's father. He executed a gift deed dated 25.09.1989 in favour of the respondent-wife. She, in turn, executed Ex.A2-settlement deed dated 07.03.2008 in favour of the appellant. Thereafter, she cancelled the said settlement deed under Ex.A3-cancellation deed dated 03.02.2010.

(3.) The suit has been laid on the premise that there is no power or authority which lies with the respondent from cancelling the settlement deed executed as the appellant is the absolute owner. Before the trial Court the respondent took a plea that the suit property was the joint family property, while the case of the appellant being the plaintiff was that it is a self acquired property of his father. Before the trial Court, the appellant has deposed that the suit property was purchased in the year 1985 in the name of his father through the joint family income, which consists of a joint family property and the labour extended by the appellant being the eldest son and his father. The trial Court decreed the suit as prayed for on the premise that the respondent/defendant has no power of cancellation after due execution. However, the relief for permanent injunction has been declined by taking note of the relationship being one of son and mother. The lower appellate Court has reversed the judgment and decree of the trial Court by placing reliance upon the evidence of the plaintiff being P.W.1 accepting that the suit property is the joint family property, having been purchased from the joint family income. The evidence of P.W.1 was also to the effect that the construction has been made through joint family income. Challenging the same, the plaintiff has come forward to file this second appeal by raising the following substantial questions of law.