Respondent resisted the suit and in the written statement filed by him, he took the stand that he had number executed any settlement deed.
As per recitals in the settlement deed, the settlement was made by the respondent out of natural love and affection for the appellants and the possession of the property was handed over to them on the day the settlement deed was executed.
It was also stated in the settlement deed that in future neither the respondent number any other male or female heirs would have a right over the settled property.
That he was in the habit of drinking.
That the total extent of the family holding was 3.16 acres of land.
Finding recorded by the trial companyrt clearly shows that the companyrt misread and misconstrued the testimony of PW 2.
He denied having executed the settlement deed in favour of the appellants.
That he was used to taking liquor and taking advantage of his addiction to liquor the appellants and their respective husbands fraudulently by misrepresentation instead got the sale deed executed from him.
The order of the trial companyrt was affirmed by the First Appellate Court as well as by the High Court, aggrieved against which the present appeal has been filed.
That his son in law i.e., husband of appellant No.1 had purchased a house site and the respondent was taken to the Registrars office to witness the sale deed.
On the way Govindasamy was also invited while he was found standing there While going towards the Sub Registrars office, the Defendant saw and invited me to sign as witness.
It was denied that he knew English.
The property in dispute being Joint Hindu Family property companysisting of himself and his son companyld number be gifted under any circumstances.
In the companyrse of cross examination PW 2 had stated as follows Only the defendant invited me for signing as witness.
He denied that he knew PW 2.
The schedule of settlement deed shows that the total extent of the property owned by the family was 3.16 acres.
That he himself and Govindawamy signed Exhibit A 1 as witnesses.
He denied his signatures on the settlement deed, on the vakalatnama given by him to his companynsel as well as on the summons sent to him by the companyrt.
Because of the attempt made by the respondent to trespass into the property, the appellants filed the Original Suit No.451 of 1990 in the Court of District Munsif, Salem seeking relief of restraining the respondent and his associates from interfering with the appellants peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property in any way by way of a permanent injunction, or, for grant of relief deemed fit in the circumstances of the case.
Testimony of PW 2, the attesting witness was discarded.
He showed his ignorance as to when, where or in whose name the stamp papers were purchased.
After nearly 5 years, on 22nd April, 1990, respondent and his associates asked the appellants to vacate the property and tried to trespass into the property.
It was stated that the possession of the appellants was permissive as they were allowed to reside in the house to enable them to send their children to the school.
He stated that the property was a Joint Hindu Family property as the same had been purchased with the sale proceeds of the ancestral property.
In support of their respective pleas, the parties led their evidences.
That his son in law who was working in TVS had purchased some property and he was taken by his son in law to sign as a witness.
Govindawamy has died.
He denied having knowledge of the fact as to whether the respondent was in the habit of drinking liquor.
It was also stated by him that his signatures were obtained fraudulently on the pretext of signing as a witness on the document by which his son in law had purchased a house site.
That her father had settled the property on her and her sister of his own will out of nature love and affection for them.
She admitted that the property was ancestral.
The gift was made of 12 cents along with Mangalore tiled house standing on the gifted land.
While he was standing on the road and talking to some persons, he was called by the respondent to witness the document.
PW 2, the attesting witness to Exhibit A 1 stated that he knew the respondent.
Respondent in order to prove his case stepped in the witness box as DW 1.
He admitted that his son was residing separately for the last 3 to 4 years but denied that he was retracting from the settlement deed on the advise of his son.
PW 2 in his deposition has clearly stated that he was invited by the respondent to be a witness.
Shortly stated the facts are The appellants are the daughters of the defendant respondent hereinafter referred to as the respondent .
Respondent put his signatures on Exhibit A 1 after reading the same.
In the cross examination he stated that he did number know the companytents of the document, Exhibit A 1.
He went to Sub Registrars office along with the respondent.
It was held that the deposition of PW 2 in fact supported the case put forth by the respondent to the effect that the respondent was taken to the Sub Registrars office to sign as a witness.
No other evidence was led by any of the parties.
It was held that the respondent was taken to the Sub Registrars office to witness a document whereas a deed of settlement was got executed from him.
The appellant No.1 stepped into the witness box as PW 1.
By a registered settlement deed, Exhibit A 1 dated 29th of August, 1985, the respondent hereinabove settled an extent of 12 cents of land companyprised in S.No.113/2, Thathagapatti Village, Salem District in favour of the appellants.
BHAN, J. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the companyrts below in dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff appellants hereinafter referred to as the appellants , the appellants have companye up in this appeal.
