A settlement deed executed without the settlor's knowledge of its contents is invalid.

JUDGMENT

The unsuccessful defendants in the suit are the appellants herein. The respondent herein/plaintiff filed a suit seeking declaration that the settlement deed dated 12.06.2020 allegedly executed by the mother of the parties in favour of the appellants/defendants was null and void. The appellants/defendants filed counter claim seeking permanent injunction against the plaintiff. The Trial Court dismissed the suit as well as the counter claim. Aggrieved by the findings of the Trial Court, the plaintiff alone filed an appeal. The first appellate court reversed the findings of the Trial Court and allowed the appeal and as a consequence, suit was decreed. Challenging the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate court, the defendants have come before this court.

2. According to the respondent/plaintiff, the suit property originally belonged to grand father Kalla Gowder and during his life time, he sold the suit property to the Gadda Gowder under a registered sale deed dated 14.10.1957. The said Gadda Gowder sold the property to Bella Gowder under a registered sale deed dated 04.03.1968. In the year 1972, the said Bella Gowder’s son Varadharaj executed a sale deed dated 21.11.1972 in favour of Mitchiammal, the mother of the plaintiff and the defendants and also infavour of one Saraswathiammal. The total extent of the subject mater of the said sale was 3 cents and the plaintiff’s mother was entitled to 1 ½ cents in the property and the same is suit property. It is also stated that a house with door No.39 is situated in the suit property. It is the case of the respondent/plaintiff that the sale consideration for purchase of the suit property was paid by the father of the plaintiff and the defendants, namely K.Raman, since their mother Mitchiammal had no source of independent income. Therefore, according to the plaintiff, the property belonged to her father and mother had no right to execute a settlement deed infavour of the defendants alone. On these pleadings, the plaintiff sought for declaration that settlement deed executed in favour of the appellants/defendants by the said Mitchiammal was null and void.

3. The appellants/defendants filed a written statement and denied the claim made by the plaintiff that the suit property was purchased in the name of Mitchiammal out of the funds provided by her husband K.Raman. It was the case of the defendants that the suit property was purchased by Mitchiammal out of her own funds and hence, she was entitled to execute a settlement deed in their favour. It was also the case of the defendants that even before execution of settlement deed, Mitchiammal executed a registered Will dated 14.05.2007, bequeathing the suit property in favour of the defendants. The allegation of the plaintiff as if the plaintiff was co-owner of the suit property and in joint possession of the property was specifically denied by the defendants. It was also stated by the defendants that the plaintiff attempted to dispossess the defendants from the suit property and hence, they filed a counter claim seeking decree for injunction against the plaintiff.

4. Before the Trial Court, the plaintiff was examined as PW1 and an independent witness was examined as PW2. On the side of the plaintiff, 9 documents were marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A9. On the side of the defenants, the 2^nd defendant was examined as DW1 and an attestor to the settlement deed was examined asDW2 and 7 documents were marked as Ex.B1 to Ex.B7.

5. The Trial Court, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, came to the conclusion that the suit property is the absolute property of Mitchiammal and she executed a settlement deed in favour of the defendants and accor