The court emphasized the importance of voluntary actions and the absence of evidence in allegations of fraud and undue influence, and the principles of maintaining the integrity of the legal process.

1. Heard both the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the respondents.

2. This revision has been preferred challenging the order, dated 14.02.2008 made in I.A.No.202 of 2006 in O.S.No.636 of 1997 on the file of the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Perunthurai.

3. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner is the mother of the contesting first respondent. The suit was filed by the petitioner / plaintiff against her son, the first respondent herein, seeking for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property. When the suit was pending before the Court below, the petitioner / plaintiff filed a memo, dated 22.11.2001 before the Court below, seeking withdrawal of the suit. In the aforesaid memo, the petitioner has stated that considering the partition that had taken place on 01.08.1996 and also the welfare of her son, the first respondent herein, she wanted to withdrew the suit and prayed the Court below to dismiss the suit filed by her without costs.

4. The Court below, considering the facts and circumstances, recorded the memo filed by the petitioner / plaintiff and dismissed the suit, as prayed for by the petitioner, by order, dated 26.11.2001. In the Judgment, dated 26.11.2001, the Court below has stated that the counsel for the petitioner / plaintiff reported no instructions and the petitioner / plaintiff had already filed memo in person, stating that she is not claiming any share in the suit property and considering the welfare of her son and the first respondent herein also requested the Court to dismiss the suit without costs. The memo was recorded, accordingly and the suit was dismissed as not pressed without costs on 26.11.2001 by the Court below . A copy of the Judgment is available at page numbers 37 and 38 of the typed set filed by the petitioner herein.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the pettiioner is an aged woman and fraud has been played on her. In the grounds of the revision, the petitioner has stated that the trial court had failed to see that the memo was filed on 22.11.2001 with a fabricated document created by the first respondent. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also raised allegation against the counsel, who appeared for the petitioner before the Court below.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner was taken to the Court with undue influence of her son, the first respondent herein and without considering the same, the Court below recorded the memo. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner was not present on 21.11.2001 before the Court below. In support of her contention, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied on the following decisions :

1. Jet Ply Wood (P) Ltd., vs. Madhukar Nowlakha, 2006 (3) SCC 699

2. Banwari Lal vs. Chando Devi, AIR 1993 SC 1139

3. Dadu Dayal Mahasabha vs. Sukhdev Arya, 1990 (1) SCC 189

7. Per contra, Mr.T.Murugamanickam, learned counsel appearing for the respondents drew the attention of this Court to page number 49 of the typed set filed by the petitioner, which is a copy of the recorded evidence deposed by the petitioner herein on 10.08.2007 before the Court below. During cross-examination, the petitioner herein has admitted that she was enquired and according to her, she was brought to the Court only by her son-in-law and that she attended the Court for the two days and for about 20 hearings, she had appeared before the Sub-Court and for about 10 to 15 times, she has further deposed that she was brought to the Court by her son-in-law and she did not know whether her son, the first respondent was present there or not. The aforesaid evidence deposed by the petitioner before the Court below, while she was cross-examined by the other side would clearly show that the memo, dated 22.11.2001 was voluntarily filed by her and the Court enquired about the same before recording her memo and she was also accompanied by her son-i