SUMATHI A SHETTY Vs. MANESHA SHETTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendants Nos.1 to 4 have filed the present writ petition against the order dated 19.2.2019 passed on preliminary issue No.5 made in O.S.No.559/2016 holding that the suit of the plaintiff is properly and correctly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction and the Court fee paid by the plaintiff is correct.

(2.) 1St respondent herein who is the plaintiff before the trial Court has filed the suit for declaration, permanent prohibitory injunction and partition and to declare the release deed dated 24.03.2012 registered before the Sub-Registrar, Mangaluru City in respect of the schedule property as null and void and not binding on the plaintiff restraining the defendants, their men, servants etc., or anybody claiming under them from alienating, mortgaging, encumbering or transferring the schedule property in any manner in favour of 3rd parties and for partition into five equal shares and allotment of one such share to the plaintiff.

(3.) It is contended in the plaint that the suit schedule property originally owned by the father of plaintiff and defendant Nos.2 to 4 and husband of defendant No.1 late K.Ananda Setty. The plaintiff acquired absolute right as per sale deed dated 11.05.1990 registered as Doc.No.185/1991 before the Sub-Registrar of Mangaluru City. After the death of Sri K.Ananda Shetty, the schedule property was inherited by his legal heirs i.e. the parties to the suit and the RTC was also mutated in their joint names. Now the plaintiff and defendants are in possession and enjoyment of their undivided rights without any let claim or hindrance from anyone. It is further submitted that even though the plaintiff had executed GPA in favour of defendant No.1, the last two lines of page No.2 at para No.7 starting from "And to execute and register the release deed in favour of our mother Smt.Sumathi A. Shetty", was initially not mentioned in the said GPA. Even if the GPA (typing style) is observed by naked eye, it is very much clear that the said lines are added at later point of time after its authentication, for the purpose of executing a release deed. The said addition has changed the entire purpose for which the GPA was initially executed by the plaintiff and hence, the addition/manipulation amounts to material alteration of the terms incorporated in the said GPA. The said addition was made without the consent or knowledge of the plaintiff and hence, any document executed on the basis of said addition is null and void and not binding on the plaintiff. The plaintiff reasonably suspect that all the defendants are colluding with each other to defeat the rights of the plaintiff over the schedule property and being benefits by alienating the same and etc., Therefore, filed the suit for the relief sought for.