Back
2017 Supreme(Mad) 3179
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
A. SELVAM, P. KALAIYARASAN, JJ.
Sathyanarayanan @ Baskar (Deceased) & Others – Appellants
Versus
P. Santhanam & Others – Respondents
A.S. No. 404 of 2011 & M.P. No. 1 of 2011
Decided On : 29-11-2017
For the Appellant :S. Balasubramanian, G. Kathirvelu, Advocates.
For the Respondent:S. Parthasarathy, Senior Counsel for P. Dinesh Kumar, Advocates
Headnote:
Registration Act - Section 17 (2) (sic) (Sec.17 (1) (b) - Suit decree - Settlement deed - Partition deed - Decreeing the suit declaring the settlement deed as void and declaring the title to the suit property in favour of the plaintiffs and also directed the defendants to deliver vacant possession - Plaintiff denied the title in the rent control proceedings - Held, Family arrangement was filed and the same has been accepted in the said proceedings and the eviction petition was dismissed - Sale deeds with respect to other properties - Since all the parties joined and executed the sale deeds it cannot be said that family arrangement was not acted upon - As rightly pointed out by the learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondents, all the parties joined in the execution of the sale deeds, as the vendees insisted - Appellant/first defendant claims title to the suit property under the settlement deed executed - Partition deed has not been filed to show the partition between sisters and their father as alleged - There is also no evidence to show that the suit property is her property - When family arrangement has been established, the above contention of the appellant/first defendant is to be brushed aside - Settlement deed has been executed without any title over the suit property and therefore the settlement deed is void - Appeal dismissed.
P. Kalaiyarasan, J.
1. This Appeal Suit has been filed by the first defendant against the Judgment and Decree of the Additional District Court (Fast Track Court No.V), Chennai dated 09.04.2011 in O.S. No. 7520 of 2010 decreeing the suit declaring the settlement deed dated 15.04.1985 as void and declaring the title to the suit property in favour of the plaintiffs and also directed the defendants to deliver vacant possession.
2. The plaint averments are as follows:
(i) The suit property bearing Door No.9, New No.20, Thoppu Venkatachalam Street, Triplicane, Chennai-5 originally belonged to Balakrishna Pillai. His wife Papathi Ammal predeceased him. Balakrishna Pillai died in 1952 intestate leaving behind him, his two daughters Amshavathi Ammal and Lakshmi Kanthammal. Amshavathi Ammal died on 25.01.1969 leaving behind her sons, the plaintiffs 1 to 3 and daughters Sarojini and D7 to D9. Sarojini died on 18.03.2000. While she was alive all the legal heirs of Amshavathi Ammal and Lakshmi Kanthammal divided the properties and a family arrangement was entered into on 20.07.1972. As per the family arrangement, life interest in the suit property was given to Lakshmi Kanthammal and after her death the property should devolve upon the plaintiffs absolutely. The Nedurambakkam property allotted as per the family arrangement to Lakshmi Kanthammal was sold by her. Like wise Sarojini and her sisters also sold some of the properties given to them under the family arrangement. Thus the family arrangement was acted upon.
(ii) Lakshmi Kanthammal executed a settlement deed on 15.04.1985 with respect to the suit property in favour of Sarojini and D7 to D9. Lakshmi Kanthammal without any title executed the settlement deed and therefore the same is void. Sarojini died on 18.03.2000 leaving behind her legal heirs D1 to D6. The plaintiffs have been in possession of the ground floor and first floor. The ground floor shed is in occupation of a tenant and he does not pay rent. D1 to D3 are in occupation of second floor of the suit property. Lakshmi Kanthammal and her sister's daughters Sarojini and D7 to D9 filed R.C.O.P.No.746 of 1988 against the first plaintiff for eviction on the ground of default in payment of rent and for sub-letting.
(iii) The first plaintiff denied the title in the rent control proceedings. The family arrangement was filed and the same has been accepted in the said proceedings and the eviction petition was dismissed. The plaintiffs issued lawyer's notice dated 25.10.2004. The defendants 1 and 2 sent a reply dated 08.11.2004. A rejoinder dated 16.12.2004 was sent by the plaintiff. Therefore, the present suit has been filed.
3. In the written statement filed by the first defendant it is averred that the suit properties and other properties originally belonged to Balakrishna Pillai. Relationship between the parties are admitted. Lakshmi Kanthammal got the suit property from her father in 1932 and has been in possession and enjoyment over the statutory period and she settled the suit property on 15.04.1985 in favour of her sister's daughters, namely Sarojini and D7 to D9. The alleged family arrangement is denied. The alleged family arrangement was not acted upon. Nedurambakkam property was also acquired by Lakshmi Kanthammal from her father and it is not by allotment as claimed by the plaintiffs. Thus the suit property is the sridhana property of Lakshmi Kanthammal. Lakshmi Kanthammal filed R.C.O.P.No.746 of 1988 against the first plaintiff on the ground of wilful default. The first plaintiff denied the title of Lakshmi Kanthammal. Hence the RCOP could not be proceeded further. Though the memorandum of family arrangement was filed in R.C.O.P, signature was not admitted by Lakshmi Kanthammal.
4. In the written statement filed by D6 to D9, it is averred that the deed of memorandum was entered into on 20.07.1972 by plaintiffs, defendants 7 to 9, Sarojini and Lakshmi Kanthammal. The suit property purchased by Balakrishna Pillai is describ
