A 2 was Settlement Deed and number Will and that the same was number executed as a result of fraud or misrepresentation and that the settlor did number have the right to execute Revocation Deed Ex.
1 and 2 among you shall take three shares, 3 to 16 among you shall take one share each.
Whether the suit is barred under Order II Rule 2 of P.C.?
Further, from the sale proceeds, you should purchase an immoveable property for Rs.4,000/ in the name of Balu G. Perumal Iyer Feeding Charities and you 16 persons as trustees should provide for feeding of my relations on the day of the procession of the deity Perumal .
Whether the settlement deed was brought into existence due to fraud and misrepresentation?
without creating any encumbrance or making any alienation whatsoever.
A 2 was titled and described as Settlement Deed, in reality it was a Will executed by late Shri K. Perumal Iyer.
During my life time, I myself shall redeem the mortgage of the undermentioned land and house which I had mortgaged to Rameseshan Co. of Madurai by a mortgage deed dated 24.3.1969 for a sum of Rs.1500/ .
The honors at the temple should be bestowed upon persons 1 and 2 among you and after them upon their heirs.
Out of the sale proceeds thus received, you should create a religious trust by paying Rs.4,000/ to the Devasthanam of Sri Prasanna Venkatesa Perumal in the office of the Saurashtra Sabha at Madurai for the purpose of taking out annual procession of Perumal in the sacred streets on Amavasai day in the month of Margazhi.
They also pleaded that the suit filed by the plaintiff appellant herein is barred by Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure CPC because the earlier suit filed by him for appointment of receiver for carrying out the directions companytained in the Settlement Deed was dismissed by the High Court in A.S. No.
On account of the alleged violation of companypromise decree, Santi Debi filed an application for execution and prayed for issue of a direction for release of the arrears of her monthly allowances.
However, the second appeal preferred by them was allowed by the learned Single Judge, who held that even though Ex.
Appeal filed by him was dismissed by the Calcutta High Court.
In the end, the trial Court declared that the plaintiff is entitled to partition of the suit property and accordingly passed a preliminary decree in his favour.
The trial Court further held that the second suit filed by the plaintiff is number barred by res judicata or Order II Rule 2 CPC.
The same were rejected by the Subordinate Judge.
Respondent Nos.1 and 2 challenged the judgment and decree of the trial Court in Appeal Suit No.102/1982, which was dismissed by the lower appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 10.3.1983.
Should there be any delay in purchasing the immovable property, you 16 persons would be fully entitled to advance money on interest or by mortgage to generate income for the feeding.
In the written statement filed by defendant Nos.1 and 2 respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein , it was claimed that the appellant and his brothers and sisters obtained the Settlement Deed by playing fraud and on discovery thereof, Shri K. Perumal Iyer executed Revocation Deed and then executed the Will whereby he bequeathed the property in their favour.
After companysidering the pleadings and evidence of the parties and hearing their advocates, the trial Court vide its judgment dated 24.4.1982 held that document marked Ex.
After my death, you 16 persons shall become eligible and have absolute right to sell the under mentioned land and house at the prevalent market price.
Two suits filed by the parties in relation to the suit property ended in companypromise decrees.
1 and 2 among you shall divide the three shares equally between you.
As mentioned above, after deducting Rs.8,000/ from the sale price, the balance amount should be divided into seventeen shares.
The trial Court decreed the suit, but on appeal, the High Court reversed the decree of the trial Court and dismissed the suit with an observation that the same shall number operate as res judicata against the fresh suit which may be filed by the plaintiff appellant herein .
If anyone of you 16 persons dies before the sale of the property, the remaining persons excluding the deceased shall have the absolute right to sell the property.
She also prayed for attachment and sale of the immovable properties.
Whether the suit is barred by res judicata?
After disposal of the appeal, the appellant filed O.S. No.858 of 1979 for partition of his 1/17th share in the suit property and for grant of a declaration that in view of the negative companyenant companytained in the Settlement Deed, the settlor had numberright to execute Revocation Deed dated 27.2.1970 or Will dated 30.7.1972.
Appellant, Rajes Kanta Roy filed objections under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Shri K. Perumal Iyer died on 4.12.1972.
After his death, the appellant filed a suit O.S. No.626/1972 for appointment of receiver to carry out the directions mentioned in the Settlement Deed.
In the event I die before redeeming the mortgage, you 16 persons shall discharge that debt.
Shri K. Perumal Iyer, who owned the suit property, executed Settlement Deed dated 27.3.1969 in favour of the appellant, respondent Nos.1 and 2 and 13 others and declared that from the date of execution he and the beneficiaries shall enjoy the land and house etc.
B 2 and Will Ex.
