A settlement deed is validated unless proven otherwise, and specific fraud allegations must be adequately pleaded and proved to set aside a deed.

JUDGMENT

Defendants 1, 3, 4, 6 to 15 in OS.No.663/1991 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, North Paravur are the appellants herein. The suit was one filed by respondents 1 and 2 herein for declaration of their title over the plaint schedule properties and also for injunction restraining the defendants from trespassing into the properties and taking income from the property and committing act of waste in the property or interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property by the plaintiffs with following allegations:

The plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 5 are brothers and sisters and defendants 6 to 8 are the children of another deceased sister of the plaintiffs and defendants 1 to . by name Kanakabai. The plaint schedule property along with the other properties were owned by the mother of the plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 5 and the said Kanakabai as per partition deed No.2614/63. Their mother intended to give the property to the plaintiffs and their brother Chandrabose alone. By exercising undue influence by defendants 1 to 5 and deceased Kanakabhai on their mother, had fraudulently got a settlement deed executed as document No.838/72 against the intention of their mother in respect of the plaint schedule S.A.No.86 of 2001 2 properties. Since it was obtained by undue influence, it was null and void and it has not come into effect. Even after the document, the property was continued to be in the possession of deceased Karthiayani, their mother. When she came to know about the fraudulent act of defendants 1 to 5 and Kanakabai, she had cancelled document No.838/72 and executed gift deed No.3098/83 in favour of the plaintiffs and their brother Chandrabose and they have accepted the gift and thereafter plaint A schedule property is possessed by the 1st plaintiff and B schedule property is possessed by the second plaintiff and they are in enjoyment of the same. The plaintiffs and their brother Chandrabose were not aware of the execution of the fraudulent document of the year 1972 at the instance of the defendants. When they got information about the document, they enquried about the same with the mother and she informed her that she had not executed any document on her free will and they got it executed fraudulently and so she cancelled the document and executed the gift deed of 1983. When the 1st plaintiff applied for mutation on the basis of 1983 gift deed, it was informed that mutation was effected on the basis of the document of the year 1972 and the application filed by the first plaintiff was rejected and it was communicated to him on 3.10.1991. According to the plaintiffs, the mutation effected on the basis of the fraudulent S.A.No.86 of 2001 3 document of 1972 is null and void and it will not affect the right of the plaintiffs over the property. The said document was executed at the time when the plaintiffs and their brother was not in station and it was also understood that while she was taken to Angamally in connection with her eye operation, she was made to sign the document from the car and thereafter she was taken to the hospital. The second plaintiff came to the hospital directly from Madras during operation of the mother. By virtue of 1983 document, plaintiffs alone are having right over the plaint schedule properties and except the plaintiffs, none had any right in the property. The defendants are trying to trespass into the properties. So they have no other right except to approach the court for declaration of their right and possession over the plaint schedule properties and also their right to get mutation effected in their favour and also for injunction restraining the defendants from taking income from the property or committing any act of waste or doing anything affecting the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the plaint schedule properties. Hence the suit.

2. Defendants 1, 2, 4 and 6 filed a joint written statement contending that the suit is not maintainable. They have no cause