POULOSE A V Vs. INDIRA M R

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The fifth Defendant in O.S. 217 of 1992 before the Munsiff's Court, Perumbavoor, who suffered a decree at the hands of the trial court and whose appeal was dismissed by the appellate court is the Appellant before this Court. The parties and facts are herein after referred to as they are arrayed before the trial court.

(2.) The Plaintiff as well as the third Defendant are the children of Kochukutty Amma Lakshmy Amma and the second Defendant is her second husband. The first Defendant is the son in the first marriage of Lakshmy Amma. The suit was one for recovery of possession after setting aside a partition deed evidenced by Ext. A-1 dated 21-7-1981.

(3.) The suit property, which has an extent of 42 cents belonged to Lakshmy Amma. She obtained it as per Ext. A-2 partition deed dated 22-10-1965. The plaint allegation is that Lakshmy Amma executed a Will with regard to the plaint schedule property in favour of the Plaintiff as well as the third Defendant. At the time of execution of the Will the Plaintiff was a minor. She had to move along with her husband and she was unaware of the Will. Defendants 1 to 3 were fully aware of the same and they concealed the existence of the Will from her. Later she came to know about the Will and then she realised that she had been defrauded. If as a matter of fact, the Plaintiff was aware of the Will she would not have entered into the partition deed evidenced by Ext. A-1. Ext. A-1 is the result of fraud and deception. As per the Will, which is produced as Ext. A-4 dated 8-4-1969, the Plaintiff is entitled to half share of the plaint schedule property. The fourth and fifth Defendants, who are assignees from some of the sharers under Ext. A-1 have no right in the property. On the basis of these allegations the suit was laid for setting aside the sale deeds as well as for recovery of possession.