certain outstanding due from third parties.
24 of 1953 asking for an order that in view of the release deed the properties be removed from the scope of the suit and the plaint be amended accordingly.
In agreement with the High Court, we accept the testimony of the respondents witnesses and we reject the evidence of the appellant and P.W. 2.
B 1, recovery of the suit properties and accounts.
motive for the release was the pending litigation and the fact that the properties originally belonged to the family of the respondents.
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated December 12, 1960 of the Madras High Court in Appeal Suit No.
The respondents disputed these companytentions.
Having regard to the release, the respondents immediately applied in the pending suit for removal of the properties from the scope of the suit and for the companysequential amendment of the plaint.
B 1 was vitiated by misrepresentation, fraud, deceit and undue influence.
On February 26, 1952, the deed was registered.
The suit was decreed by the Munsif.
In the written statement filed in O.S. No.174 of 1953, he took the plea that the deed of release did number effectively pass title to the outstandings, but he did number then say that it was vitiated by misrepresentation.
The trial Court held that though the release deed was number vitiated by fraud, deceit or undue influence, it was procured by misrepresentation and also that it did number effectively companyvey the properties.
The Paper Book does number show whether it was stamped as a release or as a companyveyance.
174 of 1953 for the recovery of one of the outstandings mentioned in the release deed against the debtors.
On January 22, 1953, the respondents instituted O.S. No.
On these findings, the trial Court decreed the suit.
After reciting that Kannammal was the owner of the properties and she died leaving the appellant as her heir, the operative part of the deed stated I hereby execute a release deed in your favour to the effect that I do number claim any huq or right whatever in the immovable properties mentioned hereunder valued at about Rs.
This application was allowed by the Court.
8 of 1957.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
B 1 being a deed of release companyld number take effect as a companyveyance.
The appellant number appeals to this Court on a certificate granted by the High Court.
He also submitted that Ex.
The appellant filed a written statement alleging that the release deed was invalid and the suit was number maintainable.
12,000 and in the outstandings to the tune of Rs.
After the execution of the deed, the appellant never asked for accounts, number cared to ascertain how the respondents were managing the properties.
His present plea that the deed was inducted by misrepresentation is an afterthought.
tie alleged that Ex.
B. Agarwala, T. R. Ramachandran and 0.
They implement the appellant as a defendant to the suit, and stated that in view of the release deed they were entitled to recover the debt.
On February 25, 1952, the appellant executed a deed, Ex.
He received numberconsideration for the release, but the.
24 of 1953 against several persons including Kannammal challenging inter alia the validity of the bequest made by Ponnuswami.
C. Mathur, for the appellant.
On February 1, 1952, Kannammal died leaving as her heir the appellant who was her husbands brothers son.
In January, 1952, the respondents instituted O.S. No.
8,000 due by others in all Rs.
On the same date, the respondents filed an application in O.S. No.
By a will dated August 9, 1931, their grandfather Ponnuswami bequeathed the immovable properties to his paternal uncles daughter, Kannammal.
His main companytention was that he was induced to execute the deed on the representation that it was a power of attorney authorising the respondents to manage the properties on his behalf.
On January 31, 1955, the appellant, instituted the present suit asking for a decree for setting aside Ex.
B 1, in favour of the respondents releasing the suit properties including.
521 of 1964.
V. Gupte, Solicitor General and R. Ganap thy Iyer, for the respondents.
