Last Updated :
‘A’ an aged widow about 80 years is the owner of immovable properties in Hyderabad. She has a son „B‟, who was having a wife „C‟. All are Indian Christians. A is purported to here executed an irrevocable indenture of settlement, by which the income of all the said properties is supposed to have been given over to „B‟ and „C‟. „C‟ has filed a suit against „A‟ & „B‟ for carrying out the provision of the said deed of settlement. She has also alleged in her plaint that, the income, possession, and management are denied to her. „A‟ wants to contend in defence that the said deed was brought about by „B‟ & „C‟ under influence and misrepresentations that neither the possession nor the management was ever handed over to „B‟ and „C‟ and the said deed was never handed over upon, and that, she was still the sole owner in possession and management of the properties in suit.
IN THE CITY CIVIL COURT AT HYDERABAD
SUIT NO. 19 OF 2013
C aged 32 years, Christian inhabitant Residing at S.R. Nagar, Hyderabad
1) A and
Defendant No: 1 above named states as follows:
1) Defendant No. 1 admits execution of the irrevocable indenture of settlement in favour of defendant No. 2 and the plaintiff, but pleads that she was induced to do so by the undue influence and misrepresentations, of defendant No. 2 and the plaintiff as follows.
(a) the defendant was several times threatened with life by the plaintiff and defendant No.2
(b) on 9th April 2013, the plaintiff and defendant No. 2 B brought an alleged magician in this defendant‟s house and threatened this defendant that they would have black magic performed by the magicians and thus kill this defendant. This defendant, being old, submitted to this diction and executed the indenture of settlement accordingly.
(c) Defendant No. 2 and the plaintiff represented to defendant No. 1 that the deed was one of the General power of Attorney, empowering the plaintiff and defendant No. 2 to manage the property of defendant No.1.
(d) Defendant No. 2 and the plaintiff misrepresented to a D.No.1 that it was legally necessary for defendant No.1 to executed a power of attorney and appoint „B‟ and „C‟ as managers of defendant No. 1 property. 6
This defendant says that neither the possession nor the management of the property in suit were handed over to the plaintiff or defendant No.2. The indenture of settlement was times never acted upon as alleged. This, defendant therefore is still the full owner in possession and management of the properties in suit.
The Defendant therefore prays and counter claims
That it may be declared that the said deed of settlement be declared null and void as against her and that the same day by order of this honourable court be cancelled. This suit be dismissed with cost.
x x x x x x
I, defendant, to hereby declared that the facts stated above true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief.
x x x x x x x x
Advocate of defendant Defendant No. 1