MOOKAMMAL Vs. SUBRAMANIAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff is the appellant in the suit and the appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 29.8.1997, in A.S. No. 21 of 1995, on the file of the learned Principle District Judge, Tuticorin, confirming the judgment and decree dated 2.3.1994 in O.S. No. 289 of 1989 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Srivaikundam.

(2.) The suit is filed for partition and for mesne profits. According to the plaintiff, the first schedule of the suit property belonged to one Marimuthu Thevar, the father of the plaintiff, who was doing brokerage and the income was not sufficient. The husband of the plaintiff assisted the said Marimuthu Thevar and with their joint efforts, the second schedule property was purchased in the name of Marimuthu Thevar and in the 4th item, Marimuthu Thevar constructed two houses. The third schedule property belonged to the mother of the plaintiff, namely, Petchiammal and she died in the year 1957. Marimuthu Thevar had executed a registered 'will' dated 20.4.1970 bequeathing the properties to others against the interest of the plaintiff. He revoked the will and on such revocation, Marimuthu Thevar insisted the plaintiff to execute a release deed in his favour. The said release deed is not valid as it was executed under coercion and undue influence. Marimuthu Thevar died in the year 1988 leaving behind the plaintiff and the defendants 1 to 5 as his legal heirs. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled for half share in the first schedule and 1/6th share in the second and third schedule properties. The other defendants are subsequent transferees.

(3.) The suit was resisted by the defendants 1 to 5 stating that the plaintiff has relinquished her right under release deed dated 6.1.1971 which is for a valuable consideration and therefore, she is not entitled for any share. The trial Court on analysing the oral and documentary evidence found that the release deed is true and valid and negatived the contention of the plaintiff that it was created under coercion and undue influence and also negatived the plea of the plaintiff that the release deed was hit by the Section 6 of Transfer Property Act and thus dismissed the suit. The first appellate Court also agreed with the trail Court and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has preferred the present appeal on the following grounds: