Validity of the settlement deed.

The question in this appeal is whether the settlement deed executed by the 1st defendant on August 29, 1959 is binding on him. Both the Courts below held that it was not. The plaintiff, who on the strength of the settlement sought and failed to obtain a declaration of her title to and injunction in respect of the suit properties, has come up to this Court in Second Appeal.

The plaintiff is the elder sister of the first defendant. Their father and the plaintiff’s husband had died years ago. It is in evidence that the plaintiff was living with the first defendant for 20 years past managing his properties. She brought him up practically from his young age, and got him also married. The first defendant’s wife, the second defendant, is said to have contracted leprosy about four years prior to the settlement deed and at the time of its execution she had a daughter and another child in the womb. Six months after the settlement deed, the second defendant was delivered of a female child. The settlement deed was executed by the first defendant at Chidambaram where it was registered. The 'A' schedule properties, which consisted of the bulk of the properties owned by the first defendant, were settled by him absolutely on the plaintiff. The remaining properties were settled by him on the second defendant for life with the remainder to the first defendant’s daughter Neelavathi absolutely. There was a further provision that if Neelavathi predeceased her mother, the B schedule properties should be taken by the plaintiff herself absolutely. The settlement deed recited that pursuant thereto, the first defendant had delivered possession of A schedule properties to the plaintiff. Then came a provision which stated that since the second defendant was living with the first defendant and that though he had handed over the B schedule properties to her, she was bound to maintain him during his lifetime. The reason for the execution of the settlement deed was mentioned to be that A and B schedule properties had been acquired by the joint exertions of the first defendant’s father and the husband of the plaintiff. An additional reason, as stated in the settlement deed, was that as the second defendant was suffering from a skin disease, the first defendant might not be able to get any male child by her.

According to the plaintiff, the first defendant had been instigated by Duraiswami Odayar and Appavoo Pillai, who have given evidence on her side, to question the title of the plaintiff to the suit properties under the settlement deed and the first defendant, as a result, was attempting to trespass upon them. She, therefore, sought for a declaration of her title to and for an injunction restraining the first defendant from interfering with her possession of the properties. Both the defendants resisted the suit on various grounds. The first defendant denied having executed the settlement deed in favour of the plaintiff and averred that the plaintiff’s son and one Kuppuswami Odayan took him to different places presumably for consultation in connection with his wife’s skin disease and while at Chidambaram they procured a document from him the contents and nature of which he never agreed to. The first defendant maintained that the settlement deed was a fraudulent document got from him taking advantage of the confidential relationship and his mental weakness. According to him, he came to know only later that what he had been made to execute, was a settlement deed. The second defendant, while supporting the case of the first defendant further pleaded that the first defendant was not a normal man, that he did not know the distinction between good and bad, that he had been simply obeying the orders of the plaintiff all along, who was managing the properties right through and that, in the circumstances, the settlement was not executed by the first defendant with his free consent but was executed as a result of fraud and undue influence.

In the light of the fin