The failure to adequately raise grounds for invalidity in prior courts precludes consideration in subsequent appeals.

J U D G M E N T

This appeal arises out the judgment and decree in A.S No.356/2009 on the files of the III Additional District Court, Kollam.

2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal are as follows:-

The appellant/plaintiff instituted the suit for declaration and partition of the plaint A schedule property consisting of 7 cents of land. According to the plaintiff, the property derived from Smt.Anandavally, the sister to smt.Ponnamma, the mother of the plaintiff and defendants. Smt.Anandavally executed a relinquishment deed in favour of the mother of the plaintiff and later the mother of the plaintiff had absolute right title and interest over the plaint schedule property, which she later executed a settlement deed dated 27.07.2001 at Eravipuram SRO. Without knowing this, the plaintiff had demanded the partition of the plaint schedule property on 28.04.2007 and in reply the defendants put up a defence on the basis of the settlement deed. According to the plaintiff, the settlement deed was executed ignoring his rightful claim over the plaint schedule property and that the settlement deed is vitiated by fraud and got executed under undue influence. Hence, a declaration was sought for to declare that the document No.3635/2001 dated 27.07.2001 as null and void, to the extend ¼ share of the plaintiff over the property and a consequential relief for partition of ¼ share. The defendants resisted the suit contending that the settlement deed is valid and that there is no undue influence or pressure exerted on the mother, to execute the settlement deed. The mother had voluntarily executed the settlement deed and therefore the plaintiff does not have any right title and interest over the property. On behalf of the plaintiff, Exts.A1 to A8 documents were produced and PW1 and PW2 were examined. On behalf of the defendants, Exts.B1 to B3 were produced and DW1 and DW2 were examined. The trial court on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence found that inasmuch as the plaintiff has not succeeded in establishing that the settlement deed was executed by exerting fraud and undue influence on the mother, dismissed the suit. Aggrieved, the plaintiff carried forward the challenge before the III Additional District Court, Kollam, by filing A.S No.356/2009. During the pendency of the appeal, the 2^nd defendant died. The First Appellate Court, while affirming the findings rendered by the trial court on the sustainability of the settlement deed, however, decreed the suit in part by partitioning the plaint schedule property into 1/6 share in favour of the plaintiff / appellant and the 3rd respondent, and the 1^st respondent was allotted 4/6 share. Accordingly, the appeal was partly allowed. It is also pertinent to mention that along with the plaintiff, the 3rd defendant also filed A.S No.362/2009, but she did not carry forward the challenge to the dismissal of the appeal, before this Court. Aggrieved by the judgment dated 31.08.2013 dismissing A.S No.356/2009, the plaintiff has preferred this appeal raising the following substantial questions of law, which was framed by this Court while admitting the appeal on 19.02.2014:-

(a) Whether the beneficiary of a settlement deed can conceal the execution of that deed from the co-owners of that property?

(b) Whether the suppression of a settlement deed by the beneficiary of that deed from the siblings who are the co-owners of the property amounts to misappropriation of property and causes that deed null and void?

(c) Whether the beneficiaries of a settlement deed of a family property has to explain the reason why the executant-mother of the deed denied any share of the family property to her other children.

3