Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

This Appeal has been filed by the defendants against the judgment and preliminary decree dated 20th day of December 2007 in O.S No 68 of 2005 passed by the Additional District Judge at Karaikal.The brief facts of the case are as follows:

Background facts:-

2. The suit property was purchased by the plaintiff along with his other brothers and the same was registered in the name of one of his brothers Durairaj, the husband of the 1st defendant. According to him, the properties standing in the name of Durairaj devolved on the 1st defendant and his mother Papathiammal. A release deed dated 04.09.1998 was obtained by the 1st defendant from Papathiammal by playing fraud and subsequently the same was cancelled vide revocation deed dated 28.02.1999. After the cancellation, the said Papathiammal had executed a will dated 04.12.2000 and bequeathed her share in the suit properties. The plaintiff has stated that though a release deed was executed in favour of him, the same was never acted upon.

18. In the revocation deed, late Papathiammal had claimed that she had no other property. Rather, in the will, she had acknowledged that she had inherited certain properties from her husband. It is clear from the pleadings, indisputably, late Papathiammal had also inherited some properties from her husband. Therefore, the statement of Papathiammal in the revocation deed can only be termed as contrary to facts.

19. Release is nothing but a relinquishment of an existing right in favour of the co-owner for a consideration, which necessarily need not be the market value. By such relinquishment, the right, title and interest is passed on to the beneficiary. Once the relinquishment has taken place, the releasor has divested of all his/her rights.

29. Therefore, it is clear that the said papathiammal had in fact acknowledged the validity of the earlier release deed. The will obviously is subsequent to the release deed, which is marked as Exhibit B5. Hence, in the facts and circumstances, this court is off the view that the trial court erred in upholding the validity of the revocation deed. The unilateral revocation of the deed is therefore void and cannot be relied upon by the plaintiff or for that matter by any one claiming any right through the said Papathiammal and the release deed would hold good.

39. Though it might appear that the cause of action in the present suit and in O.S No 9/2003, are different, this court after perusing the pleadings and the judgment in O.S No 9/2003, the vital cause of action has remained the same. There is already a finding with regard to the validity of the release deeds and the rights of the 1st defendant. The cause of action for both the suits is the execution of the release deeds, revocation deed and the will. The sale by the defendant is only an incidental issue. It is relevant to quote here the findings of the trial court in the judgment in O.S No 9/2003.