K V SUBRAMANIAM Vs. PATTABI BHAGAVATHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the original plaintiff, challenging the order passed by the trial Court, allowing the petition by the defendants filed under Section 10 of Civil Procedure Code to stay the proceedings of the suit, O.S. No. 353 of 1989 till the decision in A.S. No. 40 of 1985 pending before the High Court. A short resume of facts would not be out of place.

(2.) The plaintiff V. Sarawarthy Ammal and K. V. Subramaniam have filed the present suit, O.S. No. 353 of 1989 for a declaration that the Settlement Deed dated 28-4-1980 executed by the first plaintiff V. Saraswathy Ammal now deceased in favour of the defendants pertaining to the suit property, Schedule A and B, is void, ab initio, legally invalid, and at any rate liable to be set aside. The second prayer is for a declaration that the conduct of the defendants in bringing about the two decrees in O.S. No. 6043 of 1983 and O.S. No. 6045 of 1983 pertaining to the suit property are collusive and fraudulent and hence the decrees dated 1-12-1983 made in those suits are liable to be set aside. It is inter alia contended in the suit that the first plaintiff V. Saraswathy Ammal and the second plaintiff K. V. Subramaniam were near relations, the second plaintiff being a paternal cousin of the first plaintiff, that the two were living as one family since childhood, that the second plaintiff was the only close and near relation of the first plaintiff and that there were some misunderstanding between the first plaintiff and the family of the second plaintiff in the year 1978 because her mind was poisoned by some third parties particularly the defendants who were complete strangers to the plaintiffs and were the tenants of the first plaintiff. It is further contended that in April, 1980 when first plaintiff was seriously ill, she was admitted to a Nursing Home called 'Raju Nursing Home' by the defendants and she was completely at the mercy of the aforesaid persons and she was not free both mentally and physically and she was under complete control and domination of the defendants. Under such circumstances, though the first plaintiff had wished to meet the second plaintiff, he was not informed by the defendants and they got a settlement deed executed in favour of themselves, and for that purpose, the Sub-Registrar was brought to the Nursing Home. The plaintiffs further averred that this settlement deed was purely as a result of fraud perpetrated upon the first plaintiff when she had no thinking power probably by administering her some medicines which deprived her of her thinking capacity. The first plaintiff makes a further reference to the Civil Suit, O.S. No. 3775 of 1981 filed by K. V. Subramaniam, the second plaintiff herein as also to the further decrees which were got passed fraudulently by the defendants in their favour confirming the binding nature of the said settlement, there being two suits, O.S. No. 6043 of 1983 and O.S. No. 6045 of 1983. The plaintiff further goes on to suggest that these decrees were also got fraudulently and collusively passed, as the very Advocate of Saraswatiammal was conducting the proceedings in favour of the 1st defendant in the earlier suit, O.S. No. 3775 of 1981 filed by K. V. Subramaniam.

(3.) In short, it is contended that the said Settlement Deed dated 28-4-1980 was as a result of fraud, collusion, undue influence, coercion, and the decrees were also passed as a result of the fraud played upon the Court as well as the first plaintiff.