The main legal point established in the judgment is that completion of construction should be permitted pending litigation, subject to accounting for the profit/income reaped from the building.

JUDGMENT :

The defendants in the suit, O.S.No.447/2022, of the Munsiff Court, Kayamkulam, are the petitioners herein. The suit is essentially one for declaration that a settlement deed executed by the husband of the 1st plaintiff in favour of the 1st defendant is void, non-est and invalid. Recovery of possession of Schedule B to F properties, upon declaring the plaintiffs title, is also sought for.

2. Along with the suit, the plaintiffs preferred I.A. No.1/2022 seeking an injunction restraining the 1st defendant from alienating plaint C to F schedule properties; from effecting further construction in plaint D schedule property; from obstructing plaint J schedule road; and from causing any obstruction to the peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaint A schedule property. As per Ext.P11 order, the learned Munsiff allowed I.A.No.1/2022 in part, restraining alienation of C to F schedule properties and obstructing the peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaint A schedule property by the plaintiffs. However, the injunction sought for from effecting further construction in plaint D schedule property was rejected. Both plaintiffs and the defendants carried Civil Miscellaneous Appeals from Ext.P11 order. By Ext.P14 common order, the Additional District Judge-I, Mavelikkara dismissed the appeal preferred by the defendants (petitioners herein) and allowed that of the plaintiffs (respondents herein), thus granting injunction from effecting any further construction in D schedule property as well. Ext.P14 common order is under challenge in this Original Petition.

3. Heard Sri.S.V.Balakrishna Iyer, learned senior counsel, instructed by Sri.P.B.Krishnan, on behalf of the petitioners and Sri.C.S.Manilal, learned counsel for the respondents.

4. The solitary dispute before this Court is with respect to the grant of injunction from proceeding with the construction in plaint D schedule property, which was refused by the learned Munsiff, but allowed by the learned District Judge. The essential facts, insofar as it pertains to the short issue before this Court, are recorded thus:

Plaintiffs are the wife and children of late Udaya Kumar and defendants 1 and 2 are his brother and mother respectively. The 3rd defendant is the son of the 1st defendant. The said Udaya Kumar passed away due to chronic kidney disease on 16.11.2022. Two months before the death, precisely on 16.09.2022, the said Udaya Kumar executed Ext.P4 settlement deed in favour of his brother/1st defendant, as per which, his rights over schedule C to F properties were settled on the 1st defendant. The plaintiffs contend that Ext.P4 document was executed, at a time when, the said Udayakumar was in the 5th stage of chronic kidney disease and was undergoing frequent dialysis, thus suffering from cognitive dysfunction. He was not in a sound disposing state of mind and hence incapable of instructing the scribe for registration of any instrument and that Ext.P4 document was got executed by the 1st defendant in his favour by taking advantage of the impaired cognitive features of deceased Udaya Kumar, wherefore, Ext.P4 is a fraudulent document, liable to be adjudged void and non-est.

5. According to the defendants, the infirmity sought to be attached to Ext.P4 is without any bonafides; that the mental health of late Udaya Kumar, as also, his capacity to understand things, were never affected, though he was suffering from kidney disease at the time of execution of Ext.P4 document; that the relationship between the said Udaya Kumar and his wife/1st plaintiff was completely estranged; that the 1st plaintiff filed Ext.P3 suit before the Family Court concerned on 31.08.2022 against the said Udayakumar, in which proceeding, he appeared before the court for mediation on 15.11.2022, the day immediately preceding his death; and therefore, the execution of Ext.P4 document, two months prior to his death, cannot be assailed as infirm or invalid for reason of the alleged impaired disposing state of mind.

6. The c