The main legal point established is that for a document to be vitiated by fraud, there must be sufficient evidence to support the allegation, and consideration can take various forms, including relinquishment or gifting of shares within the family.

The suit for partition on setting aside Ext.A2

Partition Deed, was dismissed by the trial court.

2. The plaintiff and the first defendant are siblings. Defendants 2 to 4 are the legal heirs of yet another sister, late Devayani. The properties sought to be partitioned belonged to their father Raman. He died intestate. The first defendant requested that he needed to create a mortgage to raise a loan for the renovation of the ancestral house where he was residing with family, and wanted to have the said property having an extent of 24.250 cents in his favour. The plaintiff was not amenable. Thereupon he requested for conveyance of 4 cents therefrom so that it could be mortgaged and loan availed. It was suggested that the remaining properties could be partitioned later. The plaintiff agreed for the R.F.A. No.528 of 2016 same. Making the plaintiff believe that a settlement deed is being executed, on 09.09.2005 the first defendant got executed Ext.A2 Partition Deed. Their mother Madhavi died intestate in the year 2007. On coming to know about the fraud, the suit has been filed.

3. The suit was contested by the first defendant. He supported Ext.A2 partition. 4. The trial court upheld Ext.A2 Partition Deed and accordingly dismissed the suit.

5. I have heard learned counsel on either side. The point that arises for determination is :-

“Is Ext.A2 Partition Deed vitiated as alleged by the plaintiff”.

6. It is the contention of the plaintiff that, Ext.A2 was executed making her believe that it is a settlement in respect of four cents alone. The remaining extent of property was agreed to be partitioned later.

The said contention on the very face of it is very much improbable. Even going by the plaintiff’s case there had R.F.A. No.528 of 2016 arose some difference of opinion about giving the entire property where the house is situated, to the 1st defendant. Normally, the parties would have proceeded to settle the differences and divide the entire properties amongst the sharers rather than executing a document in respect of 4 cents alone. There is no case that the house was in a bad condition requiring immediate repair and renovation.

7. The plaintiff as PW1 admitted that the Sub Registrar had explained to her of the matters. The relevant portion of the deposition reads thus :- Fsó “ Im-cy-§Ä k-ºv c-Pn-kv-{SmÀ ]dªp a-\-Ên-em-¡n Xóp .”

Therefore, the contention that she was not aware of the nature of the document, cannot be accepted. The plaintiff is not an illiterate lady. She is working as a helper in an Anganvady. She has studied up to 8th standard. She has admitted that she knows to read and write Malayalam. The husband of the plaintiff was R.F.A. No.528 of 2016 examined as PW2. He is a retired forest officer. He has admitted that he had been to many Magistrate Courts. It cannot be believed that he would have been ignorant about the execution of Ext.A2. It is also to be noticed that, defendants 2 to 4 who are the legal heirs of the deceased sister Devayani had also signed in Ext.A2

Partition Deed. They have no complaints against Ext.A2.

8. The circumstances as above disprove the allegation of fraud and misrepresentation.

9. The learned counsel for the appellant would argue that Ext.A2 is not supported by consideration. Under Ext.A2, the plaintiff and defendants 2 to 4 have not been allotted any share. There is no evidence of payment of any consideration. The averments in the plaint, especially regarding consideration, have not been specifically denied, it is argued. Under Ext.A2 the plaintiff and defendants 2 to 4 have given up their share in the property. Consideration need not always be R.F.A. No.528 of 2016 monetary in form. Ext.A2 is between the siblings and within the family. It has been recited that the document is being executed for the benefit of the family and to avoid future disputes and that the plaintiff and defendants 2 to 4 have expressed that they do not want any share in the property. It could be construed tha