Back
2017 Supreme(Mad) 107
In the High Court of Judicature at Madras
T.RAVINDRAN, J.
T.Chandrasekaran - Appellant
Versus
Jayalakshmi Ammal (deceased) - Respondents
Second Appeal No.579 of 2011 and M.P.No.1 of 2011
Decided On : 09-01-2017
For the Appellant : Mr.S.V.Jayaraman, M/s. T.Dhanasekaran
For the Respondent: Mr. V.Ayyadurai
Failure to establish the authenticity and validity of a settlement deed, as well as the lack of evidence showing its acceptance and act upon, can result in the dismissal of a claim based on the deed.
Headnote:
Settlement Deed - Property Dispute - Transfer of Property Act, Section 123, Indian Evidence Act, Section 68, and Section 3 - The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish the authenticity and validity of the settlement deed, as it did not meet the legal requirements for execution and attestation. The court also concluded that the settlement deed was not accepted and acted upon, and the plaintiff could not claim ownership of the properties based on the deed.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction regarding certain properties. The dispute revolved around a settlement deed executed in favor of the plaintiff by Appavu Mudaliar, which the defendants claimed to be fabricated and forged.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove the authenticity and validity of the settlement deed, and it was not accepted and acted upon. The substantial question of law was answered in favor of the defendants, and the Second Appeal was dismissed.
Issues: The main issue was whether the settlement deed was valid and acted upon, conferring title on the plaintiff. The court also considered the authenticity of the deed and the plaintiff's claim of ownership based on it.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the failure of the plaintiff to establish the authenticity and validity of the settlement deed, as well as the lack of evidence showing that the deed was accepted and acted upon.
Final Decision: The Second Appeal was dismissed, and the court ruled in favor of the defendants, concluding that the plaintiff failed to establish the validity and acceptance of the settlement deed.
Challenge in this Second Appeal is made by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 23.12.2010 made in A.S.No.11 of 2010 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Ginjee, confirming the judgment and decree dated 23.12.2009 made in O.S.No.150 of 2001 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Ginjee.
2. The suit has been laid by the plaintiff for declaration and permanent injunction.
3. The Second Appeal has been admitted and the following substantial question of law is formulated for consideration in this Second Appeal :-
"Whether the courts below have rendered a perverse finding that the settlement deed dated 17.06.1992 (17.07.1996) produced as Ex.A2 was not executed with the intention of conferring title on the plaintiff and that the same was not acted upon and given effect to ? "
4. The suit properties belonged to Appavu Mudaliar. The first defendant is the daughter of Appavu Mudaliar. The plaintiff is the brother's son of Appavu Mudaliar. The case of the parties reveal that the suit properties had been acquired by Appavu Mudaliar ancestrally as well as by sale deeds. In any event, it is found that the suit properties are the properties of Appavu Mudaliar. With reference to the above facts, there is no issue between the parties concerned.
5. Now according to the plaintiff, item Nos.1 to 3 of the suit properties had been alienated in his favour by Appavu Mudaliar under the sale deed dated 22.01.1990, which had been marked as Ex.A1. Even though the above case of the plaintiff as regards item Nos.1 to 3 of the suit properties has been disputed by the defendants, it is found that as against the judgment and decree of the trial Court upholding the plaintiff's case in respect of the above said items, the defendants have not preferred any Appeal or Cross Appeal. It could therefore be seen that the plaintiff has been declared to be the owner of item Nos.1 to 3 of the suit properties.
6. In this Second Appeal, we are concerned only with item Nos.4 to 7 of the suit properties. The plaintiff claims title to the above said items under the settlement deed executed in his favour by Appavu Mudaliar on 17.07.1996 and the same has been marked as Ex.A2. Now, according to the plaintiff, the first defendant had been living away from the suit village in her husband's home after her marriage and not taking care of her father Appavu Mudaliar and even the wife of Appavu Mudaliar had left him and living with the first defendant and inasmuch as it is only the plaintiff, who had been taking care of Appavu Mudaliar, out of love and affection, it is pleaded that, Appavu Mudaliar had settled item Nos. 4 to 7 of the suit properties in his favour under Ex.A2 and thus, he is the owner of the above said items of the suit properties. The above case of the plaintiff is seriously challenged by the defendants and according to the defendants, Ex.A2 had been not executed by Appavu Mudaliar in favour of the plaintiff as projected and on the other hand, Ex.A2 had been fabricated and forged by the plaintiff with the help of his henchmen, taking advantage of the proximity he had been having with Appavu Mudaliar during his old age and therefore, according to the defendants, item Nos.4 to 7 of the suit properties had not been settled in favour of the plaintiff by Appavu Mudaliar and on the other hand, they had been enjoyed by Appavu Mudaliar till his death and therefore, it is contended that Ex.A2 settlement deed has not been given effect to and not been acted upon and on that basis, it is contended that the plaintiff cannot lay a claim over item Nos.4 to 7 of the suit properties.
7. In the light of the above defence put forth by the defendants, it could be seen that the plaintiff has to establish that Ex.A2 settlement deed had been duly executed in his favour by Appavu Mudaliar and that, the same had been accepted by him and the settlement deed had been acted upon and pursuant to the same, it is only the plaintiff, who has been in possession and en
