Settlement deeds executed by family members must comply with statutory requirements to be valid; valid titles can be conferred despite contested ownership claims.

JUDGMENT :

H.P. SANDESH, J.

1. This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.

2. This second appeal is filed against the concurrent finding. The factual matrix of the case while seeking the relief of partition and declaration by the plaintiff, it is contended that suit schedule properties are the joint family properties of plaintiff and defendants and the same are available for partition and also contend in the suit that Smt.Venkatamma had no absolute right to execute the registered settlement deed dated 16.12.2013 in respect of the suit properties and the said settlement deed is not binding on his share. The defendants have appeared and filed written statement and admitted the relationship between the parties and the death of his parents. The defendant No.1 further admitted about the grant of the property and PTCL proceedings. The defendant No.1 also admitted about the family settlement dated 12.04.1999 and about not including Item No.2 of the suit schedule properties in the said family settlement. The defendant No.1 further contend that Item No.1 of suit schedule property was allotted to the share of Smt.Venkatamma as such she had absolute right over the said extent of land and same was transferred to defendant No.1 and the said transfer cannot be questioned by the plaintiff. When the Item No.2 of the suit schedule property was restored to the Smt.Venkatamma in the year 2012, there was no joint family of the plaintiff and defendants and the children of Smt.Venkatamma were married prior to 1980 and as the defendant No.1 and the said Smt.Venkatamma lived together in the same house and as the defendant No.1 took care of Smt.Venkatamma and she executed the settlement deed dated 16.12.2013 and hence, suit is liable to be dismissed.

3. The Trial Court having considered the pleadings of the parties, framed the issues and allowed the parties to lead evidence. The Trial Court even considering the material available on record, both oral and documentary evidence comes to the conclusion that there was a family arrangement between the members of the family and both the plaintiff and defendants got divided the property and no dispute with regard to the properties are standing in the name of the family and also Smt.Venkatamma got allotted the property on 13.03.2013 and the same was restored in her name and also family arrangement between the plaintiff and defendant No.1 and their mother was also taken place on 01.04.1999 dividing the said properties and also taken note of the said property was allotted in favour of Venkatamma and she has executed a settlement deed in favour of defendant No.1 that is Item No.2 of the suit schedule properties and the same was not available for partition on 01.04.1999 as the said property was sold on 15.02.1995 itself. But, subsequent to the family arrangement only, the same was restored to the Smt.Venkatamma in the PTCL proceedings in PTCL No.30/2009-10. As on the date of filing of suit, joint family was not in existence and the land was originally granted in favour of Smt.Venkatamma on 07.12.1972 with a condition not to alienate the land for a period of 15 years. However, it was sold on 15.12.1995, the same was challenged before the Assistant Commissioner and the property was restored in favour of her and she has executed the settlement deed in favour of defendant No.1 and all these factors were taken note of and when the property exclusively belongs to Smt.Venkatamma and she has executed the settlement deed in favour of defendant No.1 and hence, comes to the conclusion that p