Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SRINIVASAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL HADI
K. Kanakarathnam - Appellant
Versus
A. Perumal and Another - Respondents
L.P.A. No. 245 of 1993
Decided On : 06 April 1994
PROPERTY LAW - SETTLEMENT DEED - VALIDITY - MISREPRESENTATION AND FRAUD - PLEADING REQUIREMENTS - EVIDENCE - BURDEN OF PROOF - LIMITATION - ADVERSE POSSESSION - LETTERS PATENT, CLAUSE 15 - INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS AS JUDGMENTS.
Fact of the Case:
A mother executed a settlement deed in favor of her daughter and son-in-law in 1973. After the death of her husband in 1980, she executed a deed of revocation in 1983, alleging misrepresentation and fraud in the execution of the settlement deed. The daughter and son-in-law filed a suit for declaration of title and possession of the property, while the mother filed a suit for possession and injunction. The trial court dismissed the former suit and allowed the latter suit, granting a temporary injunction in favor of the mother.
Finding of the Court:
The lower appellate court reversed the trial court's decision, holding that the settlement deed was valid and the deed of revocation was void. The court found that there was no evidence of misrepresentation or fraud in the execution of the settlement deed and that the mother's claim of adverse possession was not supported by the evidence.
Issues: 1. Whether the settlement deed was valid in light of the alleged misrepresentation and fraud. 2. Whether the mother had acquired title to the property by adverse possession. 3. Whether the lower appellate court erred in reversing the trial court's decision.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the mother's claim of misrepresentation and fraud was not supported by the evidence. She had not pleaded any particulars of the alleged fraud or misrepresentation in her written statement, and the evidence she produced at trial did not support her claim. 2. The court held that the mother's claim of adverse possession was not supported by the evidence. She had not been in exclusive possession of the property for the required period of time, and her possession was permissive, not adverse. 3. The court held that the lower appellate court did not err in reversing the trial court's decision. The lower appellate court's findings of fact were supported by the evidence and were not perverse.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the mother's second appeal and allowed the daughter and son-in-law's L.P. Appeal. The court held that the settlement deed was valid and the deed of revocation was void. The court also set aside the temporary injunction granted in favor of the mother.
ABDUL HADI, J.
The Second Appeal 617 of 1993 and L. P. Appeal 245 of 1993 are connected proceedings and hence they are taken up together. Parties in both the proceedings are one and the same and so, they will be referred to herein as per their respective ranks in O. S. 2421 of 1988 on the file of 4th Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras (hereinafter referred to as "formal suit") out of which the above second appeal arises.
2. Defendant in the said former suit (Kanakarathinam) is the appellant in the second appeal, which has been preferred against the reversing judgment and decree, dated 16-3-1993 in favour of the plaintiffs 1 and 2 therein (respondents herein), passed in A.S. 254 of 1992 on the file of 5th Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Madras. The said former suit which was dismissed by the trial court is for declaration of plaintiffs' title to the suit house bearing Door No. 243, Arcot Road, Vadapalani, Madras pursuant to the registered settlement deed dated 7-6-1973 executed by the defendant and her deceased husband Jagannathan Reddiar in favour of the said plaintiffs, (Perumal and Sumathy) for the declaration that the deed of revocation of the above said registered settlement, dated 17-6-1983 executed by the defendant is void and for a direction to the defendant to vacate the portion of the suit property in her occupation and deliver vacant possession thereof to the plaintiffs. The above said Jagannathan Reddiar died on 17-7-1980 and their daughters are the 2nd plaintiff Sumathi (PW 2) and one Hemalatha (PW 2) and their sons are one Kirubaram and Venkataram (DW 2).
3. The defendant also filed a suit in O.S. No. 10620 of 1992 on the file of 3rd Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras (hereinafter referred as latter suit) that is, about four years after the above referred former suit. The abovesaid L.P. Appeal No. 245 of 1993 filed by the abovesaid plaintiffs in the former suit arises out of I. A. No. 21772 of 1992 in the said O.S. No. 10620 of 1992, which also relate to the abovesaid house property. In this latter suit, the said defendant sought for possession of a portion of the said property, for mandatory injunction to remove the obstructions that prevented access to the said house property and for injunction to restrain the abovesaid plaintiffs in the former suit from collecting rents from the said property and for mesne profits. In the said latter suit, the above-said I.A. sought for temporary injunction, pending suit, against interference of possession and also for mandatory injunction as prayed for in the suit etc. The said I.A. was allowed by the trial Court by order dated 22-12-1982. (Thus, this order in the abovesaid I.A. is subsequent to the judgment and decree in the former suit but before the judgment and decree in A.S. No. 254 of 1992). The said order has also been confirmed by the order dated 18-11-1993 in C.M.A. No. 52 of 1993 on the file of this Court. Therefore, aggrieved by the said concurrent order, the plaintiffs in the former suit; has preferred the abovesaid L.P.A.
4. So, it is clear, from what is narrated above, that the dispute in both proceedings in between the mother on the one hand, and her daughter (Sumathy) and the latter's husband on the other hand, in relation to the abovesaid house in question, and that the dispute is whether the settlement deed Ex. A.1 dated 7-6-1973 executed by both mother and father in favour of the said daughter and son-in-law is valid. (Though the said father also executed the said deed, as per recital in Ex.A.2, and as per Ex.A.14 (28.2.1951) by which above the defendant purchased the site in question, he was not the owner thereof but the mother alone was the owner. It is also in evidence that she alone put up house building thereon.) Though the mother has executed the said settlement deed on 7-6-1973 the said document was registered only on 28-9-1973. After the death of her husband, she has executed the abovereferred to deed of revocation of the se
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
