THIRUMALAI VADIVU AMMAL DIED Vs. MUTHAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFF in O.S. No. 447 of 1979 on the file of II Additional Sub Judge, Tirunelveli is the appellant in this appeal. Subsequent to the filing of appeal, she died and appellants 2 to 4 have been brought on record as legal heirs of deceased appellant.

(2.) SUIT filed by plaintiff was to set aside the settlement deed dated 23.1.1975 and consequently to restrain the defendants from interfering with the possession of plaintiff. The material averments in the plaint could be summarised thus: The property originally belonged to one Veerabagu Pillai, husband of plaintiff. He died on 16.11.1973. The couple had no issues. It was the case of plaintiff that plaint property was leased out to one Arumugham (PW4) and due to her old age, she was not in a position to adm inister and manage the property. It is her further case that she has no good vision and also illiterate. Except she knows how to sign, she has no education. It is said that lessee Arumugham committed default in paying rent and therefore to initiate steps to protect her and the property, she wanted a power of attorney to be executed. First defendant is none other than her brother's daughter and second defendant is her husband. With her brother plaintiff is not retaining any good relationship and he is li ving with another woman belonging to another caste. So far as first defendant is concerned, she was moving very closely with plaintiff and it was even before marriage plaintiff had absolute confidence on defendants and both defendants were very closely moving towards plaintiff. At that time, defendants requested plaintiff that if a power of attorney is executed in their favour, they can take necessary action for recovery of rent and they can also take necessary steps to administer and manage the property and also to protect the interest of plaintiff.

(3.) IT is also said that subsequent to the deed, gift tax authorities have initiated proceedings and plaintiff also given statement confirming the validity of the document. IT is their case that the attesting witnesses were aware of the document and as a matter of fact, defendants learnt that document was read over and approved by plaintiff. There is no inducement as alleged by plaintiff. They prayed for dismissal of the suit.