Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

When the patta proceedings were challenged, the High Court under Ex.A18 directed the parties to seek appropriate relief from the civil court. Thereafter, the plaintiff has filed the suit seeking the relief of declaration and injunction.

3.2. The defendant had disputed the title, not only of his brother, the plaintiff, but also of his mother over the suit properties. It is his case that the properties originally belonged to Krishnasamy Konar Vagera and under whom, the defendant worked as Pannai Agent. Recognising the meritorious service rendered by the defendant, the properties are stated to have been given as a gift. The validity of settlement deed as well as the Will are disputed. The defendant claims title and possession relying upon the patta proceedings and other revenue records.

4. The trial court framed the issues with reference to validity of the Settlement Deed as well as Will and gave a finding that both documents are true and valid. The trial court relied upon the evidence of PW2 Raman and PW3 Pappathi who have spoken about the execution of Will by Silambayee.

4.1. So far as the settlement deed is concerned, the trial court has relied upon the diary entries made by the defendant himself under Exs.A27 to 30. Relying upon the attestation made by the defendant under Ex.A2, the trial court gave a finding that if really the properties belonged to the defendant, he would not have signed as an attesting witness in a document which recites that the property belonged to his brother. Having found that Silambayee had grievance against the defendant as evidenced by cancellation of power deed under Ex.A12 and held the Will to be true.

"The law of India is compendiously set forth in Section 115 of the Indian Evidence Act, Act I of 1872. It will save a long statement by simply stating that section, which is as follows: When one person has, by his declaration, act or omission, intentionally caused or permitted another person to believe a thing to be true and to act upon such belief, neither he nor his representative shall be allowed to deny the truth of that thing."

8.10. The defendant by his conduct and act intentionally permitted his brother and mother to believe that they are the owners of the property and therefore he is estopped from disputing the validity of settlement deed and the Will.