The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the Registration of Birth and Death Act, 1969, and the Evidence Act, 1872, in determining the admissibility and validity of documents to establish the relationship between the parties. Additionally, the judgment highlights the application of Muslim law in determining the shares entitled to the plaintiffs in the suit properties.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: This Appeal Suit is filed under Section 96 of C.P.C. against the judgment and decree dated 22.08.2003 made in O.S.No.180/1997 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Kumbakonam.)

Aggrieved over the decree and judgment of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Kumbakonam., in O.S.No.180/1997, dated 22.08.2003, the present appeal has been filed by the appellants.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to herein, as per their rank before the Trial Court.

3. The brief facts, leading to the filing of this Appeal, are as follows:-

3.1. The first plaintiff is the second wife of Pakkiri Mohammed. The plaintiffs 2 to 4 are her children. The first defendant is the first wife of the Pakkiri Mohammed and second defendant is her daughter. Third defendant is the husband of the second defendant. Fourth defendant is the brother of the third defendant. The said Pakkiri Mohammed was doing business in Singapore and earned a lot of money and out of the said income, he has purchased the suit properties. While he was in Singapore, he suffered a paralytic stroke and his mental conditions were totally affected. The first plaintiff with the help of one Rahim, brought the said Pakkiri Mohammed to India and given treatment in the private hospital. After treatment, when the Pakkiri Mohammed and first plaintiff was in Keelamanthur Village, the third defendant came to Keelamanthur and took Pakkiri Mohammed stating that he will give a proper treatment to his father-in-law at Therilandur and he has also promised that Pakkiri Mohammed will be shifted to the Apollo Hospital for better treatment. However, the third defendant did not take the said Pakkiri Mohammed to the Apollo Hospital, as promised, and taking advantage of the critical conditions of the Pakkiri Mohammed, the third defendant in collusion with the fourth defendant had created some forged documents and obtained a power of attorney. Based on the above said power of attorney, sale deeds have been executed in favour of the second defendant in respect of items 2 to 6.

3.2. Hence, it is the contention of the plaintiffs that the sale transaction are absolutely invalid and not supported by any consideration. The documents have been created in collusion with the third defendant, taking advantage of the ill health of the Pakkiri Mohammed. It is the contention of the plaintiffs that at the time of execution of the documents, Pakkiri Mohammed was affected by paralytic stroke on his right side and he was not in a position to execute any document. Therefore, those documents were not valid in the eye of law, since the documents were obtained while Pakkiri Mohammed was in death bed illness and suffering from serious illness and not in a position to take any decision. Hence, the suit.

4. First defendant filed a written statement denying the relationship between the first plaintiff and the Pakkiri Mohammed. According to her, Pakkiri Mohammed married only the first defendant and the first plaintiff was a servant maid in their house and the plaintiffs 2 to 4 are not the children of Pakkiri Mohammed and there was no marriage between the Pakkiri Mohammed and the first plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiffs are not entitled to any share in the property. According to the first defendant, the Pakkiri Mohammed has executed a power of attorney in favour of the 4th defendant on 23.05.1994. In pursuant to the power deed, certain properties have been sold to the defendants 2 and 3 for valid consideration.

4.1. It is further stated in the written statement that the fourth defendant has also misused the funds arising from the sale consideration and therefore, a dispute arose between the 4th defendant and the defendants 1 to 3. Hence, at the instigation of the 4th defendant, the plaintiffs have filed a suit. It was the further contention of the first defendant that Pakkiri Mohammed while returning to India was in sound state