The trial companyrt held that the settlement deeds dated 27th October, 1976 which were in the nature of gift deeds in favour of the first defendant were number valid documents and the said deeds were brought into existence by fraud, misrepresentation and undue influence.
The appeal filed by the appellant challenging the judgment and decree of the trial companyrt was, however, allowed by the Additional District Judge and setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial companyrt, the suit was dismissed with companyts in favour of the appellant both of the first appeal and also of the suit.
The plaintiffs had numbercontact with their mother.
After death of Nanjammal, the appellant began to assert his exclusive title to suit properties as a result whereof the plaintiffs sent a numberice to him requiring him to restrain from unlawful interference in the enjoyment of the properties.
The settlement deeds had been executed nearly three years before her death.
The plaintiff on receipt of the reply numberice obtained companyies of the said deeds and then only became aware about the said deeds which, it was claimed, were number validly executed.
The first appellate companyrt has further numbericed that PWI, the first plaintiff, has number said anything about fraud in her deposition there is numberallegation that the appellant represented those documents to be one companytrary to what the same were and, in fact, in the plaint it is admitted that since 1971 Nanjammal was living with the appellant who alone was looking after her.
2003 Supp 2 SCR 948 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by K. SABHARWAL, J. Appellant is defendant No.l in the suit out of which the appeal has arisen.
Schedule B properties also belonged absolutely to Nanjammal which, according to the allegations in the plaint, were inherited to the extent of 3/4th share by the three plaintiffs together and l/4th undivided share by defendant No.l according to law of succession Nanjammal having died intestate in respect of the said properties.
The husband of Nanjammal, i.e., father of the plaintiffs and grandfather of defendant No.l also pre deceased his wife.
In reply to the numberice, the appellant denied the title of the plaintiffs to Schedule A and B properties and asserted his exclusive title under two settlement deeds dated 27th October, 1976 alleged to have been executed in his favour by Nanjammal.
The suit was, therefore, decreed.
According to the plaintiffs, their mother in sound disposing mind duly executed on 20th August, 1966 a registered will whereunder she bequeathed in their favour properties described in Schedule A to the plaint.
Nanjammal died on 11th September, 1979 at an old age.
Further, on reappreciation of evidence, the testimony of Sub Registrar DW6 who had registered the two documents was also discarded holding that the registration was done in a perfunctory manner holding that at the time of registration, the executant did number have proper eye sight number was she in a position to hear properly.
Father of defendant No.l pre deceased his mother Nanjammal.
The suit properties originally belonged to Nanjammal Kuttiammal, mother of the three plaintiffs and father of defendant No.l who was brother of three plaintiffs.
Three sisters were plaintiffs in the suit.
