Back
2004 Supreme(Mad) 1461
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. KRISHNAN
Rasu Pillai - Appellant
Versus
Muthukumaran & Another - Respondents
S.A.No.753 OF 1993
Decided On : 10 November 2004
The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of analyzing the intention of the executor and the recitals in a document to determine whether it constitutes a settlement or a will, and the implications of revocation and subsequent property transactions.
Headnote:
Settlement - Property Dispute - [Indian Registration Act, 1908, Section 17, Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Section 123, Indian Succession Act, 1925, Section 2] - The court discussed the nature of the document (Ex.A.1) to determine whether it constituted a settlement or a will. It applied legal principles from various decisions to analyze the recitals in the document and concluded that it was a settlement deed and not a will. The court emphasized the importance of the intention of the executor, registration of the document, and the presence of immediate disposition and vesting of rights in praesenti to determine the character of the document. The judgment highlighted the significance of recitals and the implications of revocation and sale deeds in the context of property rights and coparcenary. The legal provisions of the Indian Registration Act, Transfer of Property Act, and Indian Succession Act were central to the court's analysis and decision.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration of title to the suit properties and for permanent injunction against the defendants. The dispute revolved around a document (Ex.A.1) and whether it constituted a settlement or a will. The second defendant claimed title over the suit properties based on the revocation and sale deeds executed by the first defendant.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed the nature of the document (Ex.A.1) and concluded that it was a settlement deed and not a will. It dismissed the second appeal, confirming the judgment and decree of the lower courts in favor of the plaintiffs.
Issues: The key issue was whether the document (Ex.A.1) constituted a settlement or a will, and the implications of its revocation and subsequent sale of the properties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the recitals in the document (Ex.A.1) and the application of legal principles from relevant decisions. It emphasized the intention of the executor, registration of the document, and the presence of immediate disposition and vesting of rights in praesenti to determine the character of the document.
Final Decision: The second appeal was dismissed, confirming the judgment and decree in favor of the plaintiffs.
Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 29.1.1993 passed in A.S.No.12 of 1990 by the Subordinate Judge, Ariyalur confirming the judgment and decree dated 28.9.1989 passed in O.S.No.299 of 1985 by the Principal District Munsif, Ariyalur, the second defendant in O.S.No.299 of 1985 has filed the above second appeal.
2. The facts, leading to the filing of this appeal, are as follows:
a. The plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the suit properties and Patta to that properties bearing No.443 stands in the name of the plaintiffs' father and natural guardian one Late Gopal Pillai, who managed the suit properties from 1980. The first defendant, who lead a celebacy life, and the plaintiffs' grand-father Saravana Pillai, who died while the late Gopal Pillai was one year old, are brothers. Therefore, the first defendant lived in the plaintiffs' house as one of the family members and bequeathed his properties to the said late Gopal Pillai by means of registered settlement deed dated 22.9.1980, which was accepted by him. Since the suit properties are jointly enjoyed with other ancestral properties of the plaintiffs, no partition was effected between the grand-father of the plaintiffs and the first defendant. During the up-dating survey, notice was given to the plaintiffs' father and the first defendant and the first defendant gave his consent for transferring the patta bearing No.443 in the name of the plaintiffs' father. Thereafter, the first defendant issued a notice dated 31.10.1984 stating that he would revoke the settlement deed dated 22.9.1980 since he was not being maintained by the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs also gave their reply dated 12.11.1984 denying the same as false. At the instigation of one Rasu Pillai, who was not in good terms with the plaintiffs, the first defendant revoked the settlement deed dated 22.9.1980. Hence, the plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration of title to the suit properties and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. Since the first defendant died pending the suit, one Rasu Pillai claimed the title over the suit properties, he was impleaded as second defendant in the suit.
b. Resisting the suit, the defendants have filed their written statement stating that the reading of the alleged settlement deed would show that it could be a will and the first defendant has not given his properties as gift to the plaintiffs and on the basis of patta, which stands in the name of late Gopal Pillai, the plaintiffs cannot claim any right over the properties of the first defendant when he paid kist for the suit properties. The alleged will dated 22.9.1980 has been revoked by revocation deed dated 12.7.1985 by the first defendant and on 6.9.1985, the first defendant sold the suit properties for Rs.19,700/- to the second defendant.
c. The second defendant adopting the written statement filed by the first defendant would state that a co-parcener cannot execute a gift deed to another co-parcener and therefore, the deed dated 22.9.1980 is void under law and that no interest or title could be derived under such document.
3. The trial Court on the basis of oral and documentary evidence, decreed the suit filed by the plaintiffs in O.S.No.299 of 1985. Aggrieved by the same, the second defendant filed an appeal in A.S.No.12 of 1990 before the Subordinate Judge, Ariyalur, who dismissed the appeal. Hence, the present second appeal.
4. The Second Appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law.
"Whether Ex.A.1 is a settlement or a will."
5. Heard both sides.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would contend that Ex.A.1 dated 22.9.1980, which was executed by the late Kumarasamy Pillai, is not a settlement deed but it is a will and when the same was revoked by revocation deed Ex.A.10 dated 12.7.1985 by the said Kumarasamy Pillai, the plaintiffs cannot claim any right over the said properties s
