The revocation of a settlement deed must be justified under the legal provisions, and the court will consider evidence and legal principles to determine the validity of such revocation.

JUDGMENT :

1. Aggrieved by the Decree and Judgment dated 13.11.2009 in O.S. No.342 of 2002 passed by the learned IV Additional Senior Civil Judge, Guntur (for short "the trial Court"), the appellants/defendants preferred this appeal questioning the correctness of the Decree and Judgment passed by the Trial Court.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed in the Original Suit.

3. The plaintiff filed a suit for cancellation of revocation of settlement deed dated 31.05.2002 executed by 1st defendant regarding suit schedule property and for consequential permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property and for costs.

4. The brief averments of the plaintiff are that the 1st defendant is the mother of the plaintiff and defendants 2 and 3. The 1st defendant purchased the suit schedule property from one Samrajyam Sharma under a registered Sale Deed dated 17.05.1978. She has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same with absolute right. Due to love and affection for the plaintiff, the 1st defendant gifted the same to him by executing a registered Gift Deed dated 15.03.2002. Since then, he has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property with absolute rights. His name was also mutated in the Municipal records. While the matters stood thus, the 1st defendant proclaimed that she revoked the gift deed and would take delivery of possession of the schedule property. The plaintiff came to know that the 1st defendant was influenced by her daughters (defendants 2 and 3); the 1st defendant executed a revocation of the settlement deed dated 31.05.2002 without any notice or intimation to the plaintiff by cancelling the Gift Deed dated 15.03.2002. Hence, the plaintiff was constrained to file the suit against defendants 1 to 3.

5. During the pendency of the suit, the 1st defendant died, and defendants 2 and 3 were brought on record as L.R.s of the deceased/1st defendant. The 1st defendant filed her written statement when she was alive. The plaintiff got a job on compassionate grounds in Commercial Tax Department after the death of the husband of 1st defendant. The second son of the 1st defendant died due to ill health, and his wife and son are residing with the 1st defendant. Taking advantage of the innocence of 1st defendant, the plaintiff obtained a gift deed and got mutated in his name in the Municipal records. The 1st defendant learned that the plaintiff played fraud; in turn, she executed a revocation of the settlement deed on 31.05.2002. The plaintiff is making hectic efforts to dispossess her from the said property. The 1st defendant got right, title, interest and possession over the schedule property, and she sought dismissal of the suit.

6. The 3rd defendant filed her written statement, denying the plaint averments. The 2nd defendant filed a Memo adopting the written statement filed by the 3rd defendant. The 3rd defendant further stated that the plaintiff managed to obtain a settlement deed by playing fraud on the deceased/1st defendant, who is the mother of the plaintiff; realizing the same, the 1st defendant revoked the settlement deed executed by her.

7. Based on the above pleadings, the Trial Court framed the following issues, which are as under:-

1) Whether the settlement deed dated 31.05.2002 is liable to be cancelled and consequential injunction as prayed for?

2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree as prayed for?

3) To what relief?

8. Subsequently, on 03.01.2009, the trial Court framed the following Additional Issues.

1) Whether D.1 cannot unilaterally cancel the settlement deed in favour of the plaintiff by executing a revocation of the settlement deed dated 31.05.2002?

2) Whether the plaintiff has committed fraud in obtaining a settlement deed dated 15.03.2002 by D.1?

9. On behalf of the plaintiff, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and marked Exs.A1 to A1