The court affirmed that documents executed by an elderly, illiterate party under undue influence may be declared void if the essential elements of consent and understanding are not satisfied.

JUDGMENT

Defendants 1 to 3 in O.S.No.298 of 1994 before the Subordinate Judge’s Court, Palakkad, a suit for setting aside Exts.A2 to A4 (same as Exts.B1 to B3) and for recovery of possession, are the appellants. Plaintiffs are the contesting respondents.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and contesting respondents.

3. Short facts:1^st plaintiff is the second wife of one Pangan.Through the first wife, Pangan had a son by name Kunju. Kunju’s wife is the 4^th defendant Lakshmi. Supplemental plaintiffs 2 and 3 and one Arumughan are the male children of Kunju and Lakshmi. Defendants 1 to 3 are the female children of them. It is alleged that the plaint schedule properties along with other items belonged to the 1^st plaintiff and Kunju on verumpattam right. They purchased jenmom right from the Land Tribunal, Chittur. Subsequently, they orally partitioned the properties. Plaint schedule properties were set apart to the share of the 1^st plaintiff and another portion of the property was set apart to Kunju. Later, Kunju and his children partitioned the properties set apart to the former in an oral partition. Defendants 1 to 3 were married away. After the death of Kunju, 4^th defendant was looking after affairs of the plaintiffs. Though the 1^st plaintiff had executed Wills in favour of the 4^th defendant’s sons, later in 1986, she executed another Will in favour of supplemental 3^rd plaintiff Krishnan. During January, 1992, 1^st defendant took the 1^st plaintiff and 4^th defendant to her house for a short stay. On one pretext or the other, they were made to stay in the house of the 1^st defendant for a long time. Later, 1^st plaintiff alone was sent back. Thereafter supplemental 3^rd plaintiff understood that the 1^st plaintiff had been taken to the Sub Registrar’s office, Chittur and forced her to execute and register some documents. It was revealed that defendants 1 to 3 got a Will executed in their names and thereafter they obtained assignment deeds from the 1^st plaintiff in their names. Documents are vitiated by fraud and undue influence. Defendants took the advantage of the old age and illiteracy of the 1^st plaintiff. The said documents are not valid in law and are liable to be set aside. On the death of the 1^st plaintiff, supplemental plaintiffs 2 and 3 were impleaded as they claimed right over the properties by virtue of Ext.A7 Will.

4. Defendants 1 to 3 in their written statement contended that the suit was not instituted as per wish of the 1^st plaintiff. It was instituted as the supplemental plaintiffs implored to the 1^st plaintiff. The defendants 1 to 3 had filed O.S.No.168 of 1994, 222 of 1994 and 223 of 1994 before the Munsiff’s Court, Chittur and the present suit is filed to get over the consequences. Allegations that the 1^st plaintiff and 4^th defendant were taken to the house of 1^st defendant in the month of January, 1992 and that the 1^st defendant got executed a Will and three assignment deeds without making the 1^st plaintiff aware of their contents are incorrect. The above documents were executed by the 1^st plaintiff with full knowledge and defendants 1 to 3 purchased the properties as per Exts.B1 to B3 for a valuable consideration. They possessed the property pursuant to the sale deeds. 1^st plaintiff and 4^th defendant were living with supplemental 3^rd plaintiff Krishnan. They were forced to shift their residence to a “kalam” on account of ill-treatment meted out on them by Krishnan. No valid ground is mentioned in the plaint for setting aside the sale deeds.

5. 4^th defendant filed a separate written statement supporting the contentions of defe