Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAINAR SUNDARAM
Sarojini Ammal & Others
Versus
Krishnaveni Ammal alias Baby Ammal & Others
Appeal No. 533 of 1980
Decided On :Decided On : 15-02-1988
TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT - SETTLEMENT DEED - ACCEPTANCE AND ACTING UPON - REVOCATION - VALIDITY OF SUBSEQUENT SALE - EXECUTION OF SETTLEMENT DEED - ATTESTATION - REQUIREMENTS - VALIDITY OF SETTLEMENT DEED - TITLE TO PROPERTY - DECLARATION - MESNE PROFITS - PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION - COSTS.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs filed a suit for a declaration that the sale deed executed by the first plaintiff in favor of the first defendant relating to item 1 of the suit properties is void, for a declaration that the second plaintiff is entitled to a life-estate in the said item and plaintiffs 3 to 6 are entitled to a vested remainder, for a declaration that the first plaintiff is the owner of item 2 of the suit properties, for possession of item 1 and 2, for past and future mesne profits, and for costs. The defendants contended that the settlement deed was not accepted by the second plaintiff and was not acted upon, and that the first plaintiff executed a deed of revocation and subsequently sold item 1 to the first defendant. With regard to item 2, the defendants contended that the first plaintiff executed a settlement deed in favor of the first defendant and that the same was valid.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the settlement deed Ex. B4 was accepted and acted upon by the second plaintiff and that the subsequent revocation and sale were invalid. The court also held that the settlement deed Ex. B77 relating to item 2 was not executed in accordance with the requirements of law and was therefore invalid. The court further held that the plaintiffs were entitled to a declaration that they were entitled to item 1 of the suit properties in equal shares and that they had a life-estate in the same, and that they were entitled to a declaration that they were entitled to item 2 of the suit properties in equal shares. The court dismissed the plaintiffs' claim for exclusive possession and relegated the parties to a separate suit for partition and separate possession.
Issues: 1. Whether the settlement deed Ex. B4 was accepted and acted upon by the second plaintiff? 2. Whether the subsequent revocation and sale were valid? 3. Whether the settlement deed Ex. B77 relating to item 2 was executed in accordance with the requirements of law? 4. Whether the plaintiffs were entitled to a declaration that they were entitled to item 1 of the suit properties in equal shares and that they had a life-estate in the same? 5. Whether the plaintiffs were entitled to a declaration that they were entitled to item 2 of the suit properties in equal shares? 6. Whether the plaintiffs were entitled to exclusive possession of the suit properties? 7. Whether the parties were entitled to mesne profits?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Acceptance of a settlement deed can be inferred from the conduct of the parties and the factual materials of the case, and it is not necessary for there to be a formal parting with or handing over of the deed by the settlor to the settlee. 2. A settlement deed cannot be revoked unless a power of revocation is reserved for the settlor in the deed itself. 3. A settlement deed must be attested by two witnesses who have seen the executant sign the instrument or affix his mark thereto, or who have seen some other person sign the instrument in the presence of and by the direction of the executant, or who have received from the executant a personal acknowledgment of his signature or mark, or of the signature of such other person, and who have each signed the instrument in the presence of the executant. 4. A settlement deed that is not executed in accordance with the requirements of law is invalid.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree of the court below, subject to the modifications that the plaintiffs were not entitled to exclusive possession of the suit properties and that the parties were relegated to a separate suit for partition and separate possession.
1. The appellants in this Appeal are the first defendant and the legal representatives of the second defendant, who take in also the first defendant in O.S. No. 1700 of 1969 on the file of the IV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras. The respondents herein are plaintiffs 3 to 6. That suit was laid by the plaintiffs for a declaration that the sale deed, dated 14-6-1963 Ex. B99 by the first-plaintiff in favour of the first-defendant relating to item 1 of the suit properties is void for a declaration that the second-plaintiff is entitled to a life-estate in the said item and plaintiffs 3 to 6 are entitled to a vested remainder for a declaration that the first plaintiff is the owner of item 2 of the suit properties for possession of item 1 and 2 for past mesne profits at Rs. 2650 in respect of item 1 for future mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 100 per mensem in respect of item 1 till delivery of possession for past mesne profits in respect of item 2 at Rs, Rs. 2700 and future mesne profits in respect of item 2 at Rs. 75 per mensem and for costs. The parties are relations and the property dispute amongst them arose in the following manner. The first plaintiff was the husband of the second plaintiff. Plaintiffs 3 to 6 and the first defendant are daughters of plaintiffs 1 and 2. The second defendant was the husband of the first defendant. Plaintiffs 1 and 2 died pending the suit and their children plaintiffs 3 to 6 and the first defendant stand recorded as their legal representatives. After the Judgment of the Court below, the second defendant died, and as stated above, this Appeal has been preferred by the first defendant, who is also a legal representative of the deceased second defendant and the other legal representatives of the deceased second defendant. On 25-1-1954 as per Ex. B4. the first plaintiff executed a settlement deed in favour of the second plaintiff, and the daughters of plaintiffs 1 and 2, namely, plaintiffs 3 to 6 and the first defendant in respect of item 1 of the suit properties. Under this deed of settlement, the second plaintiff was given a life estate, and after her lifetime, the daughters, plaintiffs 3 to 6 and the first defendant were also given a life estate, and only thereafter the absolute estate was given to their Santhathis . According to the plaintiffs this deed of settlement was executed by the first plaintiff, and in fact, this was acted upon. In contrast, defendants 1 and 2 would state that the deed of settlement was not accepted by the second plaintiff and it was not acted upon, and the plaintiff on 6.4.1962 executed a deed of revocation as for Ex. B42, and on 14.6.1963 for valid consideration the first plaintiff conveyed item 1 to the first defendant as per Ex. B99. With regard to item 2 the plaintiffs would state that the signatures of the first plaintiff were obtained in documents without he being made wiser about their nature and contents and the plaintiffs wanted to ignore a deed of settlement, dated 14.1.1961, as per Ex. B77, stated to have been executed by the first plaintiff to and in favour of the first defendant as totally a void document. In contrast, the defendants wanted to sustain Ex. B77 and obtain title under the same in respect of item 2 of the suit properties.
2. Reflecting the controversy raised by the parties through their pleadings, the Court below formulated the relevant issues and it after assessing the evidence placed by the parties, oral and documentary, came to the conclusion that Ex. B4 was accepted and was acted upon and hence Ex. B42 and B99 would not be availed of by the defendants to claim any title in respect of item 1 and Ex. B77 was not proved to have been executed by the first plaintiff in accordance with law and ultimately, the court below decreed the suit of the plaintiffs, as prayed for with costs. The question of mesne profits was directed to be determined by separate proceedings.
3. In this appeal, we are primarily concerned with two questions.
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
