Mere attestation of a document without knowing its contents will not amount to estoppel, and even if the attesting witnesses are aware of the contents, the plaintiff cannot get any right over the property as per the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court.

1. Plaintiff in 0.S. No. 406 of 1988 on the file of District Munsif Court, Chengalpattu is

the appellant.

.2. Material, avermentsin the case could be summarised thus :

One Thulikkanam had four sons by name Chinnaikuzhanthai alias Chakkarai, Murugan, Veerabathran and Chinnappan. Chinnakuzhanthai had four daughters by name Kuppammal, Chinnakannammal, Theivanai and Vembuliammal. Theivanai and Vembuliammal are alive but they are dumb. Thendavarayan was the only son of Chakkarai and his wife was one Lakshmi. They had no issues. Plaintiff is the son of Chinnakannammal. One of the sons of Thulikkanam by name Veerabathran had four sons by name, Gopal, Arunachalam, Balaraman and Nagooran. Arunachalam is the first defendant and Balaraman and Nagooran are defendants 5 and 6 in the suit. Son of Nagooran is the 7th defendant. Arunachalam s legal heirs are defendants 2 to 4 and 8 to 11 in the suit.

3. According to plaintiff, he has obtained title to the property on the basis of Ex.Al executed by Gopal and Chinnappan. Gopal is the son of Veerabathran and Chinnappan is the son of Thulukanam. According to plaintiff the property belonged to them and the same was settled in favour of plaintiff. It is further averred that defendant 1, 5 and 6 have also attested the document after knowing the contents of the same. Therefore they are estopped from questioning the right of plaintiff over the property.

4. The reason for filing the suit is that they are interfering with the right of plaintiff and also trespassed into the property. Suit was therefore laid to declare the title of plaintiff and for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining defendants from interfering with his possession.

5. In the written statement filed by defendants, they denied the title of plaintiff. According to them Ex.A.1 is void ab initio and executants did not have any right over the plaint schedule property.

.6. In the additional written statement, they further took a contention that there was oral partition in the family after the death of Thulukanam and plaint property was allotted to the share of Chakkarai. Chakkarai had a son by name Thandavarayan and he had married one Lakshmi Ammal. On the death of Chakkarai, plaint property devolved on his only son Thandavarayan. During his life time, he has executed a settlement deed. which is also registered. That is dated 8. l957 Ex.B1. As per the said deed, Thandava rayan had divided the property into three schedules. A Schedule to go to his mother to be enjoyed by her lifetime and then to his wife Lakshmi Ammal absolutely. B Schedule was bequeathed to his wife Lakshmi Ammal. C’ schedule property was to be given to plaintiff herein on condition that he should marry his sister-in-laws daughter by name Raniammal. It is further provided in the document if the condition is not complied with, Kannappan will not be getting the right over the C’ Schedule and Lakshm i Ammal will be the absolute owner. Kannappan did not marry Raniammal and consequently, Lakshmi Ammal continued to be the owner of the C Schedule also. After the death of Thandevarayan, Lakshmi Ammal became absolute owner of the property of all the schedules. She died intestate and had no issues. The properties will have to devolve as per Hindu Law and if so, persons who have executed Ex.A1 will not have any right or at any rate will have small share over the entire item. According to them they are in possession of the property as owners and plaintiff is not entitle to get injunction nor declaration as prayed for.

7. On the basis of above pleadings, trial court as per judgment dated 7. l998 decreed the suit. Trial court hold that defendants have not proved the oral partition and since there is attesting witnesses to Ex.A1, they cannot deny the title of plaintiff. The main reason for decreeing the suit was that defendants 1, 5 and 6 have attested Ex. Al fully knowing the contents of the deed and therefore they are estopped from a questioning the title of plai