Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(KER) 26306
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
M.R.ANITHA, J
AMRUTHAKUMAR – Appellant
Versus
MOHANANPILLAI – Respondent
RSA 1050 2017
SRI.A.T.ANILKUMAR SMT.V.SHYLAJA, SRI.T.B.HOOD AND SMT.M.ISHA FOR R1 AND R2, SRI.GEORGE MATHEW AND HARIHARAPUTHRAN - R5 TO 7
Revocation of a settlement deed requires formal judicial proceedings if executed under mental incapacity; such a revocation is invalid without it.
Headnote:
Property - Partition - Section 126 - The court held that a revocation deed executed without a prior suit to cancel an existing settlement deed is invalid. The mother's mental incapacity at the time of signing was key in affirming the original settlement's validity.
Fact of the Case:
Siblings filed for declaration, partition, and permanent injunction against their brother who claimed ownership over inherited properties via revocation and settlement deeds executed by their bed-ridden mother shortly before her death.
Finding of the Court:
The courts confirmed that the mother was not in a fit mental state to execute the deeds, solidifying the original settlement deed from 1993 as valid, thus dismissing the brother's claims.
Issues: Whether the revocation and subsequent settlement deeds executed by the deceased mother were valid, given her mental state at the time of execution.
Ratio Decidendi: A settlement deed cannot be cancelled unilaterally by a revocation deed unless done through a suit. Mental incapacity renders such deeds invalid.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed; the plaintiffs' rights and the original settlement deed were upheld.
JUDGMENT
The Regular Second Appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree in A.S.No.63 of 2014 on the file of III Additional District Judge, Alappuzha which in turn arise out of the judgment and decree in O.S.No.336/2001 on the file of Sub Court, Attingal.
2. Appellants are defendants 2, 4 and 7. (Parties would hereafter be referred as per their status before the trial court). The suit is one for declaration, partition and permanent prohibitory injunction. Plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 to 7 are siblings and defendant No.8 is the nephew of plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 to 7. Parties got plaint schedule item Nos.1 and 2 properties by virtue of settlement deed No.3066/1993 dated
11.10.1993 of Pulincunnu S.R.O. Plaint A schedule was allotted to the first plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 3 and plaint B schedule property was allotted to the second plaintiff and defendant Nos. 4 to 8. Settlement deed has been executed by the mother of the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 7 and the maternal grandmother of 8th defendant. Mother retained her life interest over the plaint schedule properties. There is a residential building in the property where nobody has been residing over the last eight years. She had been suffering from various old age diseases and was totally bed ridden due to paralysis and she had been admitted to KVM Hospital, Cherthala from 06.07.2011 to 31.07.2011. After discharge from the hospital also she was fully bed ridden and was residing with the second defendant. She died on 12.10.2011 and after that, second defendant claimed absolute right over the schedule properties under the guise of cancellation deed No.2376 dated 26.08.2011 to revoke the settlement deed. On the same day, another settlement deed No.2377 was also got executed in the name of second defendant through undue influence and playing fraud upon the mother Thankamma. The revocation deed as well as settlement deed executed in favour of the second defendant is invalid in the eye of law and will not bind the plaintiffs or the schedule properties. Hence the suit has been filed for declaring that settlement deed dated 26.08.2011 and revocation deed are not binding on the plaintiffs and plaint schedule properties and also partition of the plaint schedule property as per settlement deed dated 11.10.1993. Apart from that, a decree of perpetual injunction is also sought against the second defendant from transferring the entire plaint schedule property or any portion thereof except his ¼ right over the plaint schedule item No.1 property.
3. Defendants 1 to 3 remained ex parte. Second defendant filed written statement denying plaintiff's right, title and interest over the plaint schedule item Nos.1 and 2 properties and he asserted his right and title over the schedule properties under the guise of revocation deed as well as settlement deed dated 26.08.2011. Even though the settlement deed on 11.10.1993 was executed, the second defendant has been in possession of the properties and was cultivating the properties and residing in the building. The allegation regarding old age diseases of Thankamma and her mental incapacity is denied. She is contended to be fully conscious till her death. So, the plaint schedule property is not partible and plaintiffs are not entitled for any share.
4. 7th defendant filed written statement supporting the second defendant and defendants 5, 6 and 8 supported the averments in the plaint and sought for partition and separate possession of 1/6th right each over schedule item No.2 property. PW1 to PW3 were examined and Exts.A1 to A4 were marked. Exts.X1 to X1(a) were also marked. There was no evidence from the side of the defendants.
5. The trial court, on evaluating the facts and circumstances and evidence, decreed the suit, as prayed for. Against which appeal was filed and the first appellate court, on reappreciation of facts and circumstances and evidence, dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial court
