Conditions in settlement deeds imposing restrictions on marriage or religious vows are void and do not affect property rights.

JUDGMENT :

EASWARAN S., J.

1. Interpretation of a settlement deed executed by a father in favour of his daughter containing a restrictive covenant that if she ‘marries’ or becomes a ‘nun’ the property will revert back to her brother comes up for consideration in this appeal.

2. Suit filed for declaration of title and possession at the instance of the respondent / plaintiff was dismissed on the ground that the suit is barred by limitation. On appeal by the plaintiff, the First Appellate Court reversed the judgment and decree and held that the plaintiff is entitled for the relief and decreed the suit.

3. The plaintiff was given an extent of 10 cents pursuant to a settlement deed dated 13.09.1965 by her father. Three schedules were drawn up in the settlement deed. The plaintiff was conferred right and title over the B schedule property. The dispute in the appeal centers around a clause in the settlement deed, wherein the father inserted a clause by stating that if the plaintiff got married or becomes a nun, the entire rights in the property would extinguish and would later devolve upon the defendant. The plaintiff got married on 23.06.1971. The father died in 1983. Later the plaintiff was in Germany, after her marriage. Subsequently, the plaintiff came to know that the defendant had in a clandestine manner mutated the property without any authority and was enjoying the property. Hence the suit for declaration was instituted stating that the offending clause in the settlement deed, which bars the plaintiff from enjoying the property because of her marriage, is void ab initio. The defendant resisted the suit by contending that the suit is barred by limitation. It was further contended that there was no cause of action for the plaintiff to file the suit. It was further pointed out that the suit property was mutated by the defendant soon after the marriage of the plaintiff and that the property was wholly enjoyed by the defendant and it was mortgaged with a third party and the usufructs were being collected from the property by the defendant. On behalf of the plaintiff, Exts.A1 to A4 documents were marked and PW1 and PW2 were examined. On behalf of the defendant, Exts.B1 to B5 were marked. Exts.X1 and X2 were the third party exhibits. There was no oral evidence adduced by the defendant.

4. The trial court on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence came to the conclusion that the impugned condition in the settlement deed is perfectly valid and that the suit being instituted in the year 2008 is hit by Article 58 and 113 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and accordingly dismissed the suit. Aggrieved, the plaintiff preferred an appeal, as A.S No.219/2009, before the Additional District Court, Kottayam. The First Appellate on re-appreciation of the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the conditions under Section 31 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, does not apply and that the plaintiff is entitled to enjoy the property as her own. The plea of limitation was overruled inasmuch as the impugned recitals in the gift deed were held to be void. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed and the suit was decreed. Hence the present appeal.

5. On 20.07.2012, while admitting the appeal this Court framed the following substantial questions of law for consideration:-

i) Did not the lower appellate court err in not construing the condition mentioned in Ext.A1 settlement deed in consonance with Section 21 consequent to Section 31 of T.P Act?

ii) Whether the court below failed to interpret property Ext.A1, title deed in the light of the condition mentioned in Ext.A1?

6. Heard Shri.George Joseph Ittan Kulangara, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Shri.M.A.Asif, the learned counsel a