C THIRUVENGADA MUDALIAR Vs. CTHANGAVELU MUDALIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application to enforce a compromise is a suit for partition. Defendants 1 to 7 make the application and it is resisted by the plaintiff The suit relates to a Hindu family consisting of three branches. The plaintiff is the sole representative of his branch; the 8th defendant represents another branch and the third branch is represented by the defendant 1 and sons, defendants 2 to 7. Defendant 8 allowed the suit to proceed ex parte and the compromise was only as between defendants 1 to 7 on the one hand and the plaintiff on the other.

(2.) The terms were reduced to writing and engrossed in Tamil on a stamp paper. The arrangement is an extremely simple one. The first defendant and his sons agreed to pay the plaintiff Rs. 8,000 in full settlement of his claim in the family properties. The deed says that the plaintiff was thereafter to have no concern with the properties of the family, with the outstandings due or the debts payable. Defendants 1 to 7 were to pay the amount of Rs. 8,000 within one month from the date of the decree. A charge was to be created on the properties for this sum and as defendants 5, 6 and 7 are minors, sanction of the Court should be obtained on their behalf to make the compromise binding upon them. As I have said, the terms are so simple that any one perusing the document can easily understand them. The effect of the agreement is that the plaintiff receives Rs. 8,000 and separates himself from the family. It is impossible therefore to uphold the contention that the terms were not understood by him. The plaintiff now pretends that he was not even aware whether the agreement he signed was in English or in Tamil. This is on the face of it an absurd lie. It is alleged that he is deaf and partly blind.

(3.) It was sought to be made out that be was stone-deaf, but the attempt has utterly broken down. He was in the witness box for a considerable time and was able to hear every question put to him, only the interpreter was obliged to speak a little louder than usual. Then in regard to the other infirmity alleged, it is a gross exaggeration to say that he is partly blind. He was able to read his own signature and when sufficient light was allowed, also some portion of the rest of the document; I am convinced that for the purpose of this application, his infirmities, such as they are, have been magnified beyond limits of trust.