- (1.) LEGATEE of the plaintiff in O.S.No.l51 of 1979, on the file of the District Munsif's court, Srivilliputtur, is the appellant.
(2.) THE suit filed by the plaintiff (who is now no more) is one for cancellation of a settlement deed dated 28.4.1973, executed by her in favour of the first defendant, and also for a permanent injunction restraining the first defendant from interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. The material averments in the plaint are as follows: The plaint mentioned property originally belonged to the plaintiff. She is in possession of the same ever since her husband's death in the year 1961. A portion of the plaint schedule property is a Government poramboke, and the same is described as Item No.2 in the plaint. It is averred that the plaintiff wanted to create a Trust in so far as Item No.2 was concerned, and, for the said purpose, she wanted the help of the first defendant who is none other than her nephew. It is further averred that ever since her husband's death, the first defendant was very much affectionate towards the plaintiff and the plaintiff also reposed complete confidence in him. Further, plaintiff was also becoming old and she was falling sick now and then. Because of the confidence reposed in him, plaintiff requested the first defendant to create a Trust in so far as second item of the schedule property's concerned. But, taking advantage of the plaintiff's innocence and confidence, first defendant obtained a registered settlement deed in so far as all the properties are concerned. Plaintiff came to know about the settlement deed only long time thereafter, and she cancelled the same as per registered document on 5.4.1978. She also issued a lawyer's notice to the first defendant stating that the property belonged to her and that he should not interfere with her possession and enjoyment of the property. A reply was sent by the defendant denying the allegations contained in the notice. He also mentioned in that reply that the property was voluntarily gifted to him and that the same is valid. It is said that for the purpose of cancellation, the suit was filed.
(3.) IN the written statement filed by the first defendant, he has said that he never took advantage of her old age, and that he did not create any fraudulent document. He said that the document is genuine and the same was acted upon to the knowledge of the plaintiff. He said that he was not in a dominating position, nor did he influence the plaintiff in any way for executing the settlement deed. He said that the suit was filed only at the instance of one Krishnamaraja, plaintiff's elder sister's son, and that it was only at his instance the revocation deed was also executed. He has further stated that he has effected improvements in the property, and that the plaintiff has no cause of action.;