The relinquishment deed is valid as execution was voluntary, negating claims of misrepresentation.

ORDER :

T.V. THAMILSELVI, J.

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed seeking to set aside the order and decree dated 10.12.2024, made in IA No.2 of 2024 in OS No.796 of 2024 on the file of IV Additional District Judge, Coimbatore.

2. The appellant herein filed suit in OS No. 796 of 2014 on the file of the IV Additional District Judge, Coimbatore, against respondents herein (first respondent is her brother, respondents 2 to 4 are her sisters and fifth respondent is the Branch Manager, Canara Bank, Pollachi Branch), to cancel the relinquishment deed dated 25.10.2021, vide document No. 11069/2021, which said to be executed by the appellant and her sisters/respondent 2 to 4 in favour of the first respondent as Null and Void and also prayed to divide the suit schedule property into five equal shares along with other consequential relief. While so, the appellant herein filed I.A No. 2 of 2024 in OS No. 796 of 2014 praying to grant an order of interim injunction, restraining the first respondent, his men, his agents, from alienating the plaint schedule mentioned properties pending disposal of the suit.

3. The said application was contested by the respondents by filing counter/objections. On hearing both sides, the Trial Court dismissed the said application. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

4. The brief facts of the case:

The first respondent is brother of the appellant, Second respondent is mother of the appellant, 3 & 4 respondents are sisters of the first respondent. All were legal heirs of one Varatharaja Chettiar. The appellant claiming that suit properties originally belongs to one Ayyavu Chettiaar, who purchased the suit schedule properties through several sale deeds and he derived title to the portion of the suit schedule properties by way of partition deed. In the year, 1966 the said Ayyavu Chettiar died leaving behind Varatharaj Chettiar/father of appellant as his only legal heir, who possessed and enjoyed the entire suit properties till his demise. After his demise, as legal heirs, the appellant and respondents 1 to 4 are entitled to 1/5 share each in suit schedule properties and they were in joint possession of the suit properties and the first respondent was sharing the income of the suit properties with the petitioner and the respondents 2 to 4. In the meantime, the appellant demanded partition. The first respondent is a politician who occupied key post in legislative assembly from Pollachi constituency for near about 20 years. Taking advantage of the position, the appellant by colluding with other respondents obtained signature in the document by misrepresenting as if it is partition deed. Further, he gave false promise that he would give the copy of the document while handing over the possession. Later, while she obtaining encumbrance certificate, she came to know that document signed on 25.10.2021 is relinquishment deed not partition deed. Since, the appellant is having equal right over the suit properties, the question of relinquishment of her right without any consideration from the first respondent did not arise. After issuing notice, the appellant has come forward with the suit in O.S.No.796 of 2014.

5. The respondents contested the case by filing written statement. While pending suit, the appellant filed an interim application praying to grant order of interim injunction, restraining the first respondent, his men, his agents, from alienating the plaint schedule mentioned properties pending disposal of the suit.

6. The respondents filed counter objections to that application stating that the appellant filed the suit at the instigation of the appellant’s husband and she was very well aware about the relinquishment deed, besides her husband also one of the attest