A family settlement must be bona fide, voluntary, and meet specific legal criteria; mere allegations without credible evidence do not suffice.

JUDGMENT :

Dated this the 4^th day of March, 2025 Plaintiffs, who are aggrieved by the decree and judgment dated 31.07.2013 in O.S.No.874/2011 on the files of the III Additional Sub Court, Ernakulam, have preferred this appeal under Section 96 r/w Order XLI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’ for short). Respondents herein are the defendants in the Suit.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well as the learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent. Perused the trial court records and the decisions placed.

3. I shall refer the parties in this appeal with reference to their status before the trial court, hereinafter for easy reference.

4. Plaint averments in brief:- The plaintiffs and the defendants are the children of late Kuttappan and Thankamma and they died in the year 1975 and 1999 respectively. Kuttappan obtained 5 ¼ cents of property as kudikidappu as per Sale Deed No.3790/1976 of Ernakulam SRO. Thankamma obtained 5 cents of property in Karikamuri on the strength of Will executed by her brother Mylan in the year 1972. The 1^st defendant, who is the eldest member of the family and was holding a respectable job in Port Trust, was entrusted to manage the properties since he had command over the other members of the family. The 1^st defendant persuaded Thankamma and the 2^nd defendant to sell the properties for purchasing 20 cents of property in Elamkulam village. Accordingly, the property owned by Thankamma was sold to one James. By using the sale proceeds of the said 5 cents and advance amount of the kudikidappu property, 20 cents of property, adjacent to the kudikidappu 5 cents property, was purchased. At the time of purchase of 20 cents of property, it was agreed to purchase the same in the name of Thankamma, but the 1^st defendant executed sale deed in his name even though a draft in the name of Thankamma was initially prepared, since the 1^st defendant had command and control over the plaintiffs and other defendants. Some property obtained by Thankamma was also agreed to be sold in the name of Viswanathan and Rs.5,000/- was received as advance. Later the said property was sold to one T.M.Joseph. The said money was utilised for constructing 2 houses in the schedule property. Thereafter due to intervention of mediators, the 1^st defendant agreed to transfer 5 cents out of the property together with the building therein to the 2^nd defendant, who has been residing there with his family. It was also agreed to sell the remaining property and give value of 2 cents each to the plaintiffs. The original agreement was retained by the 1^st defendant. The 1^st defendant wilfully refused to enforce the agreement. Again there were rounds of mediation. On 23.08.2011, an agreement was executed by the 1^st defendant in favour of plaintiffs and 2^nd defendant agreeing to transfer title and possession of 10 cents of land forming south and western portion of the plaint schedule property in the names of the plaintiffs and southern 5 cents including the house therein to the 2^nd defendant free of consideration. On 23.09.2011, 2 sale deeds also were drafted in this regard. Ignoring the agreement, the 1^st defendant attempted to sell the property and accordingly the present suit has been filed seeking decree of mandatory injunction directing the defendant to act in accordance with the agreement dated 23.08.2011 and also restraining the respondents from alienating the plaint schedule property.

5. First defendant entered appearance and filed written statement. Agreement dated 23.08.2011, alleged to be executed by the 1^st defendant in favour of the plaintiffs and the 2^nd defendant, was denied and it is contented that the same is concocted, fabricated and forged one. The mother of the plaintiffs and the defendants died as on 19.03.1997 and not in the year 1995. The statement that Kuttappan obtained title over 5 ¼ cents of land by sale deed No.3790/1976 as kudikidappu is incorrect and denied. Sale deed