Kerala High Court
M. Rajan Pillai vs M.S.Vijayakumaran Nair And Others on 12 February, 2014
Author: K.Harilal
Bench: K.Harilal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL
WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2014/23RD MAGHA, 1935
RSA.No. 568 of 2010 (A )
------------------------
AS 88/2008 of II ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, KOLLAM
OS 184/2000 of MUNSIFF MAGISTRATE COURT, PARAVUR
APPELLANT/1STAPPELLANT/1ST DEFENDANT::
--------------------------------------------------------------------
M. RAJAN PILLAI, PUTHENVILA VEEDU,
THAZHATHU CHERRY, CHATHANOOR,
MEENADU VILLAGE, KOLLAM.
BYADVS.SRI.T.KRISHNAN UNNI (SR.)
SMT.P.A.SHEEJA
SMT.MEENA.A.
SRI.SAJU.S.A
SRI.K.C.KIRAN
SRI.JAMSHEED HAFIZ
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/2ND APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF/2ND DEFENDANT::
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. M.S.VIJAYAKUMARAN NAIR AND OTHERS
SATHI BHAVAN, PUTHENKULAM, FROM PUTHENVILA VEEDU
THAZHAM, CHATHANNOOR, NOW WORKING P.B.NO.8365
DOHA, QUATAR.
2. SAVITHRI AMMA, PUTHENVILAVEEDU,
THAZHATHU CHERRY, CHATHANOOR, MEENADU VILLAGE
KOLLAM.
R1 BYADV. DR.K.P.SATHEESAN (SR.)
R1 BYADV. SRI.M.R.JAYAPRASAD
R1 BYADV. SRI.MATHEW SUNNY
R1 BYADV. SRI.ANOOP.V.NAIR
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12-02-
2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
okb
K.HARILAL, J.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
R.S.A. No.568 of 2010
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Dated this the 12th day of February, 2014
JUDGMENT
The appellant herein is the unsuccessful appellant before the first appellate court as well as the unsuccessful defendant in the original suit. This Regular Second Appeal is preferred against the judgment & decree passed in A.S.No.88/2008 on the files of the II Additional District Court, Kollam, filed against the judgment & decree passed in O.S.No.184/2000 on the files of the Munsiff's Court, Paravur. O.S.No.184/2000 was filed by the respondents herein and the above suit was one for declaration of title and possession over A and B schedule proprieties and for declaration that the Document Nos.3777/98, 3778/98, 3779/98 and 3780/98 executed in favour of the defendant are void ab initio and not binding on the plaintiffs and also for a permanent injunction R.S.A.568 of 2010 :2:
restraining the defendant from trespassing into the plaint schedule properties and committing waste over the plaint schedule properties.
2. The specific case of the plaintiff is that he is the absolute owner in possession of plaint A and B schedule properties and he obtained the properties by virtue of Ext.A2 sale deed. He is in possession and enjoyment of the properties right from the date of execution of the documents and he is also paying land tax. The properties are lying as a compact plot within well defined boundaries and he had constructed compound wall, fencing etc. to separate it from the neighbouring properties. So also, he had put up a basement for constructing a residential building therein, in exercise of his proprietary rights over it. The plaint schedule properties were part and parcel of a larger extent of 85= cents of property owned and possessed by his father, late Madhavan Pillai. Out of that property, he settled 20 cents and 40 cents in favour of the elder brother Ramachandran Pillai and the daughter R.S.A.568 of 2010 :3:
Thankamaniyamma in the year 1984 vide Ext.A1. Both the settlees accepted the settlement made in their favour by taking possession and exercising enjoyment over their respective shares. Out of the 40 cents given to Thankamaniyamma, 8= cents in the southern side had been acquired for the purpose of Kallada Irrigation Project. The compensation awarded to that acquisition was received by Thankamaniyamma in her capacity as the absolute owner in possession of it. Thereafter, the balance 31= cents of property along with 2= cents and another 11 cents belonged to the father and lying contiguous to it had been sold to him vide Ext.A2 document by Thankamaniyamma and the father Madhavan Pillai jointly. On the same day, the father executed Ext.A3 settlement deed settling 10 cents of property lying contiguous to the property covered by Ext.A2 sale deed in favour of the plaintiff reserving his life estate. Subsequently, during 1996, the father released that life estate vide Ext.A4 release deed making him the absolute owner of that 10 R.S.A.568 of 2010 :4:
cents, which is the B schedule. Now, the defendants 1 and 2, who are none other than his brother and mother, fraudulently got executed 2 cancellation deeds, namely Exts.A7 and A8, when the father was in a totally disabled condition, both physically and mentally, due to his ailment and further got executed Ext.A9 settlement deed in favour of the second defendant and Ext.A10 sale deed in favour of the first defendant, in respect of the properties covered by Exts.A2 to A4 documents. It is also averred that on 23.12.1998 while the father was undergoing treatment at Upasana Hospital, Kollam, the defendants took away him from the hospital to the Registry and caused to execute the documents sought to be declared as void ab initio in this suit. The documents sought to be declared as void ab initio have no validity in the eye of law and are invalid void ab initio.
3. The defendant filed a written statement and set up a two-fold attack on the plaintiff's case by contending that Exts.A4 to A6 title deeds executed in favour of the plaintiff R.S.A.568 of 2010 :5:
have no legal validity at all as the same were got executed by the plaintiff and his sister Thankamaniyamma fraudulently by taking advantage of the mental incapacity of the father Madhavan Pillai. They denied the entire allegations of fraudulent acts alleged against them. According to them, it is absolutely false that late Madhavan Pillai had disposed of 20 cents and 40 cents respectively in favour of the elder son Ramachandran Pillai and the daughter Thankamaniyamma by virtue of Ext.A1 document. Actually it was decided to give family share to Thankamaniyamma at the time of her marriage and the elder brother Ramachandran Pillai was entrusted for the same. But taking advantage of that opportunity, he fraudulently and in a deceitful manner created Ext.A1 settlement deed purporting to settle 20 cents in favour of him and 40 cents to Thankamaniyamma by the father, late Madhavan Pillai. Ext.A1 did not come into effect and never acted upon by anybody. The property covered still remains as undivided plot. It is also contended that Madhavan Pillai R.S.A.568 of 2010 :6:
along with Thankamaniyamma had not executed sale deed settling 34 cents and 40 cents to the plaintiff under the free will of Madhavan Pillai. It was fraudulently caused to be executed by Thankamaniyamma which also has not come into effect. In the same manner, the plaintiff got executed the settlement deed in respect of B schedule property in his favour on the same day and those documents have no legal consequence as it was contended that vitiating elements of fraud and deception were exhorted by the propounder of those documents. As a matter of fact, the father Madhavan Pillai was not in a state to execute document in his free will and volition. He was suffering from serious diseases to kidney and brain which made him in a bed ridden stage. He was suffering from paraphernia dementia, the characteristics of which are loss of thinking power and acting in a reasonable manner based on reasonable understating of things happening around him. This stage makes him to be termed as a person with unsound mind which was taken as an advantageous R.S.A.568 of 2010 :7:
situation by the plaintiff and the elder brother and sisters to fraudulently create the above documents. The father Madhavan Pillai on is own volition had revoked the disposition made in favour of the elder son Ramachandran Pillai and the daughter Thankamaniyamma and the plaintiff on realising the fact that the same were executed without his consent and knowledge, subsequently executed valid cancellation deeds on his own power and volition. Thereafter, he himself disposed of those properties in favour of the defendants vide Document Nos.3777/98 and 3780/98 and those documents confer them absolute right, title and interest over the properties. The plaintiff has no right, title or interest over the plaint schedule property which is in absolute possession and ownership of the defendants. On the above grounds, he pleaded for dismissal of the suit.
4. The plaintiff's evidence consists of Exts.A1 to A28 and the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4. The defendant's evidence consists of the oral evidence of D.Ws.1 to 3 and Exts.B1 to R.S.A.568 of 2010 :8:
B10. Exts.C1 to C3 were also marked. After considering the evidence on record, the trial court decreed the suit as prayed for and rejected all the contentions raised by the defendants. Feeling aggrieved, though the defendants had preferred the above appeal, the appellate court also confirmed the findings of the trial court and dismissed the appeal. This Regular Second Appeal is filed challenging the concurrent findings arrived at by the courts below.
5. Though this Regular Second Appeal has been filed assailing the concurrent findings of the courts below on various grounds, the learned counsel for the appellant mainly focused on the point that at the time of execution of Exts.A1 to A4, the executant late Madhavan Pillai had no sound disposing mind. At that time, he was incapable of understanding the things and he was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia with memory impairment, a major mental disorder. But the courts below concurrently failed to evaluate the evidence of D.W.1 and Ext.B2 medical certificate issued by him in its correct perspective. The R.S.A.568 of 2010 :9:
courts below ought to have found that taking advantage of the mental impairment of the father, the elder brother Ramachandran Pillai fraudulently and in a deceitful manner created the settlement deed No.1780/84 (Ext.A1) purporting to settle 20 cents to him and 40 cents to Thankamaniyamma by the father Madhavan Pillai. The courts below ought to have found that Ext.A1 has not come into effect and has never been acted upon by anybody and the properties covered by Exts.A1 to A4 still remain as undivided plots. The courts below ought to have found that Madhavan Pillai had revoked Exts.A1, A3 and A4 disposition on realising that it was executed without his consent and knowledge and he further executed valid revocation deeds on his own power and volition. He also disposed of those properties in favour of the defendants which confer them absolute right, title and interest in it.
6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents advanced arguments to justify the concurrent finding of the courts below. According to him, as rightly found by the R.S.A.568 of 2010 :10:
courts below, the evidence of D.W.1 coupled with Ext.B2 certificate issued by him was not sufficient to arrive at a finding that the deceased Madhavan Pillai was incapable of understanding the disposition made by him and of forming a rational judgment as to its effect upon his interests. In short, absolutely there is no evidence to prove that the deceased Madhavan Pillai was of unsound mind and was disabled from contracting at the time of execution of Exts.A1 to A4. The evidence of D.W.1 is not supported by material records. According to him, Ext.B2 medical certificate was issued on the basis of the prescriptions said to have been produced by the defendants to him. The disposition of property by Ext.A2 is an absolute gift which was accepted by him on the date of gift deed itself and subsequently, the plaintiff has effected registry of mutation and acted upon it. Thus, Ext.A1 became irrevocable at the time of execution itself. Similarly, though Ext.A3 was executed reserving a life estate, subsequently he himself released the life estate and the plaintiff became the R.S.A.568 of 2010 :11:
absolute owner in possession of the said property also. The indisputable possession of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule properties is evidenced by Exts.C1 to C3.
7. In short, the argument against cancellation deed and subsequent disposition of property in favour of the defendants is that at the time of cancellation as well as subsequent disposition, the deceased Madhavan Pillai had no right over the property. If that be so, the subsequent dispositions render themselves void ab initio and not binding on the plaintiff.
8. On the pleadings of the respective parties, the trial court rightly framed issues and considered the evidence on record. Thereafter, in appeal also, the appellate court reappreciated the evidence on record and concurred with the findings of the trial court.
9. At the outset itself, the learned counsel for the respondents cited State of Gujarat Vs. Babubhai ukabhai Sarvaiya (2011 KHC 2314=AIR 2011 Guj.
77), Abdul Sattar Vs. Laxman Prasad and others R.S.A.568 of 2010 :12:
(2012 KHC 2925 = AIR 2012 MP 168) and Kanak Majumdar and another Vs. Indrani Roy and others (2013 KHC 2601=AIR 2013 CAL. 81) and enlightened the court as regards the scope and extent of jurisdiction under Section 100 of the CPC. Going by the above decisions, it could be seen that the scope and extent of jurisdiction under Section 100 is well settled by the Apex Court as follows: The scope of second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC is very limited and unless any substantial question of law involves, the court need not entertain such second appeal. The jurisdiction of this Court to interfere with the findings of the fact under Section 100 of the CPC is limited to the case where the findings is either perverse or based on no evidence. In short, this Court cannot interfere with the concurrent findings of fact until or unless the same is perverse or contrary to material on record. The above decisions remind myself the scope and extent of jurisdiction well delineated by the Supreme Court and the exercise of R.S.A.568 of 2010 :13:
jurisdiction must be confined to that extent only.
10. The main thrust of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the court below miserably failed to appreciate the evidence of D.W.1 in view of Ext.B2 in its correct perspective. According to him, at the time of execution of Exts.A1 to A4, the deceased Madhavan Pillai had no sound disposing mind and he was incapable of entering into a contract. Let us have an analysis of the law at first. Sections 11 and 12 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 relate to these points.
"11. Who are competent to contract.-- Every person is competent to contract who is of the age of majority according to the law to which he is subject, and who is of sound mind and is not disqualified from contracting by any law to which he is subject.
12. What is a sound mind for the purpose of contracting.--A person is said to be of sound mind for the purpose of making a contract, if, at the time when he makes it, he is capable of understanding it and of forming a rational judgment as to its effect upon his interests.
11. In Sona Bala Bora Vs. Jyotirindra R.S.A.568 of 2010 :14:
Bhattacharjee [2005 KHC 872= (2005) 4 SCC 501)], it reads as follows:
" Under Section 12 of that Act, a person is said to be of sound mind for the purpose of making the contract, if, at the time when he makes it, he is capable of understanding it and of forming a rational judgment as to its effect upon his interests. A person of unsound mind is thus not necessarily a lunatic. It is sufficient if the person is incapable of judging the consequences of his acts. Black's Law Dictionary says:
"As a aground for voiding or annulling a contract or conveyance, insanity does not mean a total deprivation of reason, but an inability, from defect of perception, memory and judgment, to do the act in question or to understand its nature and consequences."
12. Going by the above sections, it could be seen that the sound mind is one of the statutory requirements to enter into a contract and unsoundness of mind is a factor which renders a contract void. Once a lunatic is not always a lunatic, a person of unsound mind is not necessarily a lunatic. Likewise, a person cannot be branded as insane or incapable to enter into a contract for the reason that he was not sane. A person can be sane as well as insane at R.S.A.568 of 2010 :15:
times. Insanity can come and go intermittently. There can be lucid intervals of sanity in between the periods of insanity. A person can enter into a contract when he is sane in the lucid intervals and such contract is also valid.
13. What is the test of the unsoundness of mind? A person, who is occasionally of unsound mind, can enter into a contract when he is of sound mind and the document which he executes at that time is a valid one. The test of the unsoundness of mind is, whether a person is capable of understanding a contract which he makes and of forming the rational judgment as to its effect upon his interests. The settled legal position is that the burden is on the person who pleads that the executant was of unsound mind when he executed the document.
14. In the instance case, the specific case advanced by the defendant is that at the time of execution of Exts.A1 to A4, the late Madhavan Pillai was of unsound mind and he was incapable of understanding the contract which he made and of forming a rational judgment as to its effect R.S.A.568 of 2010 :16:
upon his interests. First of all, the nature of the documents has to be evaluated. Ext.A1 is a gift deed dtd.14.4.1984 executed by Madhavan Pillai and his daughter Thankamaniyamma. Going by the documents, it is seen that Ext.A1 is an absolute gift with respect to B schedule property which is set apart in favour of the plaintiff. But, at the same time, it could be seen that with respect to A schedule property the donor has made a reservation that he should have life estate over the said item. It is seen that, when he disposed two items of properties by a single transaction, he reserved a life estate in favour of one item only and no reservation was made in favour of the other item. Therefore, no doubt, it could be seen that the disposition of B schedule property in the gift deed in favour of Thankamaniyamma is an absolute gift deed executed during the life time of the donor.
15. Going by Section 126 of the Transfer of Property Act, it is seen that a gift can be revoked if the donor and donee agree that on happening of any specified event, R.S.A.568 of 2010 :17:
which does not depend on the will of the donor, a gift shall be revoked. Similarly, a gift, which the parties agree, shall be revocable wholly or in part, as the case may be. Therefore, a gift can be revoked under two occasions, specifically stated, under Section 126 of the Transfer of Property Act. In the case of an absolute gift, no such occasion would arise and at the instance of acceptance, the gift becomes an irrevocable one. But, it is the specific case of the plaintiff that the said irrevocable gift was cancelled by Ext.A8 cancellation deed.
16. Let us analyse the cancellation deed also. In view of the contention of the defendant that at the time of execution of the gift deed Madhavan Pillai was of unsound mind, incapable to understand what he was doing. Going by Ext.A8, it could be seen that Madhavan Pillai himself admitted that earlier he had executed gift deed No.1780/1984 and he further says that he was constrained to cancel the said gift deed on the reason that the donees caused obstruction to his enjoyment over the property. As R.S.A.568 of 2010 :18:
far as item No.B in Ext.A1 is concerned, there was no such reservation clause reserving the right of enjoyment in favour of the donor. Therefore, in the absence of any such reservation clause in Ext.A1, going by the documents itself, it could be seen that Madhavan Pillai had no right to execute a cancellation deed with respect to B schedule property in Ext.A1 gift deed and it is significant to note that the above alleged cancellation was effected after 14 years and the plaintiff has produced Ext.A14 series land tax receipts, A16 plan, A17 possession certificate and A18 land tax receipt. Thankamaniyamma, the donee, after the execution of the gift deed, executed Ext.A2 sale deed in favour of the plaintiff and he had effected mutation and he has been paying tax from the date of Ext.A2. This is further supported by Exts.C1 to C3. Ext.C1 is the commission report prepared by the Advocate Commissioner deputed by the Court. Ext.C2 is the mahazar and Ext.C3 is the plan appended to the mahazar. After verifying these documents, the courts below rightly and R.S.A.568 of 2010 :19:
concurrently observed that the plaint A and B schedule properties are lying as a compact plot surrounded by a compound wall. In view of the above said evidence, the courts below rightly rejected the contention that Ext.A1 has not been acted upon so far.
17. It is pertinent to note that in Ext.A8 cancellation deed, Madhavan Pillai had no case that at the time when he executed Ext.A1 gift deed, he was incapable of understanding the consequences of execution of that document or the said document was caused to be executed fraudulently in a deceitful manner by the donees as alleged by the defendant. The sole reason stated in Ext.A8 is that since the donees caused obstruction to the enjoyment of the property, he was constrained to cancel Ext.A1. Though the defendant contended that the deceased Madhavan Pillai was a person of unsound mind, according to them, at the time of execution of the cancellation deed, he was a person of sound mind. If that be so, for an argument sake, even if that contention is admitted, the recitals in the R.S.A.568 of 2010 :20:
cancellation deed is binding upon them also. They cannot disown the recitals in the cancellation deed, which says the reason for cancellation, if he had executed the cancellation deed in his own volition. Therefore, I am of the opinion that even by an analysis of the documents and its contents the defendants cannot be heard to say that Madhavan Pillai was of unsound mind while executing Ext.A1 gift deed.
18. It is also seen that Madhavan Pillai had executed Ext.A3 gift deed in favour of the plaintiff, settling B schedule property with a reservation of the life interest in favour of him. But, subsequently, he has executed Ext.A4 releasing his life interest which he had earlier reserved in Ext.A3. Therefore, going by Exts.A3 and A4, it could be seen that by the execution of Ext.A4 release deed, Ext.A3 gift deed became absolute and, thereafter, the same cannot be revoked in view of Section 126 of the Transfer of Property Act. If Madhavan Pillai himself released his life interests in favour of the plaintiff by Ext.A4, he has no right to cancel Ext.A3 by Ext.A7 on the reason that the donee R.S.A.568 of 2010 :21:
caused obstruction to his right of enjoyment over B schedule property.
19. Let us analyse the medical evidence available on record, to answer the question whether the oral evidence of D.W.1 coupled with Ext.B2 is sufficient to arrive at a conclusion that at the time of execution of Exts.A1 to A4, Madhavan Pillai was a person of unsound mind? In proof of the above incompetence of the father, the defendant placed strong reliance on Ext.B2 medical certificate and evidence D.W.1 who had issued it. I have given my anxious consideration on both. In Ext.B2 medical certificate issued on 23.1.2001 by D.W.1, it is stated that the late Madhavan Pillai was suffering from Paranoid Schizophrenia with memory impairment. It is also stated that he appears to be a person suffering from paraphernia dementia, which is a mental disorder. He was advised for life long rehabilitation therapy and continued medication until his death. It is also mentioned that Madhavan Pillai was under the treatment of D.W.1 from 1988 September to 1998. D.W.1 was subjected R.S.A.568 of 2010 :22:
to cross-examination. In the chief examination, D.W.1 has stated that, "there cannot be any lucid intervals. So the testamentary capacity will also be not in proper stage. But, in cross-examination, in response to the question, What was the stage thereafter, the answer was, it was sometimes becoming well, but sometimes it was becoming deteriorated. The patient tried to be violent intermittently mostly on night times. I have not observed that stage of the patient personally." That apart, it is also stated that he never used to keep prescriptions and he was unable to produce any treatment records of the deceased Madhavan Pillai from 1988 to 1998. Further, he admitted that Ext.B2 medical certificate was issued on the basis of the records produced by the bystanders. In response to another specific question, Was Madhavan Pillai able to execute any document during 1988?, he answered that he cannot say exactly. Some times, the memory impairment may brighten and it depends. It is also admitted that he had not admitted the patient in hospital and he did not remember R.S.A.568 of 2010 :23:
upto which month in 1998 he treated the patient. On an analysis of the above evidence, even if the evidence of D.W.1 is taken at its face value, he admitted that the patient had lucid intervals and he cannot say exactly as to whether Madhavan Pillai had sound disposing mind at the time when Exts.A1 to A4 were executed by him.
20. Therefore, I concur with the findings of the court below that relying on the evidence of D.W.1 in the light of Ext.B2 certificate issued by him, it is absolutely impossible to arrive at a conclusion that Madhavan Pillai had unsound mind and he was incapable of disposing of his property after understanding the consequences at the time when Exts.A1 to A4 were executed by him. I am of the opinion that P.W.2 is the star witness to speak about the mental condition of Madhavan Pillai at the of execution of Ext.A1.
21. P.W.2 Thankamaniyamma deposed that she, along with her father, executed Ext.A2 sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. She would swear that her father, the late Madhavan Pillai, was perfectly competent and capable to R.S.A.568 of 2010 :24:
execute documents both mentally and physically and he did not have any mental problem affecting his sense. She denied the question put to her in cross examination that Madhavan Pillai was suffering from unsoundness of mind and he was undergoing treatment since the last more than 25 to 30 years. According to her, he had a kidney complaint alone. She asserted that she had witnessed the affixture of signature in Ext.A2 sale deed. Though the defendant imputed bias on Thankamaniyamma, contending that she was keeping a hostile attitude to the family, no positive materials were produced to show such hostile attitude on the part of P.W.2 towards his family members.
According to her, her father had never been suffering from any kind of mental impairment which incapacitated him disposition of property. She would further swear that father himself had dictated the terms of the sale deed to the scribe and she was also a witness to Ext.A3 gift deed. She would further swear that the father had dictated the terms of Ext.A3 after himself dictating the terms of Ext.A3 R.S.A.568 of 2010 :25:
to the scribe and she had witnessed the affixture of signature by the father in Ext.A3 also. The evidence of P.W.2 is further supported by the evidence of P.W.3, the scribe, who had scribed Ext.A1 document. While she was in the witness box, Ext.A1 was shown to him and he admitted that he had scribed the said document and other witness had prepared the draft. He also deposed that the terms of Ext.A1 were dictated by the deceased Madhavan Pillai himself to the witness and after scribing the same, he himself read out the terms of the deed and after hearing it, Madhavan Pillai approved the same. Thereafter, Madhavan Pillai affixed his signature in the deed. Thereafter, witness No.1 attested the signature of Madhavan Pillai and thereafter, he attested the signature of Madhavan Pillai. It is also added that each witness had witnessed the affixture of the signature of other witnesses also. The learned counsel for the respondent contended that a scribe cannot be a witness in a document required to be attested.
R.S.A.568 of 2010 :26:
22. But going by the attestation portion of Ext.A1, I find that P.W.3 had put his signature in dual capacity both as scribe as well as witness who witnessed the affixture of the signature of the executor and there is no legal infirmity in the attestation of Ext.A1 document. Therefore, on an over all appreciation of evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, I am of the opinion that Exts.A1 to A4 are duly executed documents after complying the entire formalities required under law.
In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it can be held that, at the time of execution of Exts.A1 to A4, the late Madhavan Pillai had sound disposing mind and the documents are legally valid and sustainable. I have already found that on an analysis of Exts.A1 to A4, it could be seen that, by the execution of Exts.A1 to A4, Madhavan Pillai had conveyed his entire right over the property to the donees as well as the vendees as the case may be and thereafter, no kind of right was vested in him to cancel Exts.A1 to A4. Therefore, I concur with the findings of the court below that the cancellation of Exts.A1 to A4 is R.S.A.568 of 2010 :27:
invalid, null and void. It follows that the subsequent disposition of property in favour of the defendants by Exts.A9 and A10 are also null and void and legally unsustainable and invalid.
23. Therefore, I find that there is no illegality or impropriety in any of the findings and I do not find any kind of perversity in the appreciation of evidence from which those findings have arrived at. Resultantly, this Regular Second Appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(K.HARILAL, JUDGE) okb.