Back
2018 Supreme(Mad) 357
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
T. RAVINDRAN, J.
Elayaperumal and Another – Appellants
Versus
Marutha Muthu – Respondent
S.A. No. 1404 of 2003
Decided On : 19-02-2018
For the Appellant : T. Gandhi.
For the Respondents: S. Krishnasamy, Malath Devapriyan.
Headnote:
Civil Laws – Suit for declaration and permanent injunction – Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the lower appellate Court was right in holding that the respondent is entitled to get declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule property based on Ex.A1 gift deed even though it was not accepted by the settlee and was not acted upon as accepted by PW-1 in his evidence – Whether the lower appellate Court was right in holding that Ex.B6 which is the revocation of gift deed and Ex.B1 which is the subsequent gift deed are not valid – Whether the lower appellate Court can pass a judgment and decree allowing appeal, without consider Exs.B2 to 5, Exs.B8 to 13, which are chitta and kist receipts from the year 1980 to 2001 – Held, Considering the evidence of PWs. 1 and 2 in toto, it is seen that the first appellate Court was right in accepting the case of the plaintiff and granting the reliefs sought for in favour of the plaintiff pursuant to Ex.A1. – When the plaintiff has clearly established that the said settlement deed had been accepted and acted upon and accordingly, the first appellate Court had rightly held that the revocation deed Ex.B6 and the settlement deed Ex.B1 would not have any legal sanctity and accordingly, the first appellate Court had rightly not placed reliance upon the kist receipts projected by the defendants as well as the other revenue documents and in such view of the matter, the substantial questions of law formulated in the second appeal are answered against the defendants and in favour of the plaintiff. – Second Appeal Dismissed
T. RAVINDRAN, J.
1. This second appeal is directed against the Judgment and Decree dated 09.06.2003 passed in A.S. No. 137 of 2001 on the file of the Principal District Court, Villupuram, reversing the Judgment and Decree dated 08.03.2001 passed in O.S. No. 1275 of 1995 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Ulundurpet.
2. Parties are referred to as per their rankings in the trial Court.
3. Suit for declaration and permanent injunction.
4. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, is that the suit property originally belonged to Karumbayee Ammal by way of purchase under a registered sale deed dated 26.02.1938 and Karumbayee Ammal was in possession and enjoyment of the suit property and she is the paternal grandmother of the plaintiff and out of love and affection towards the plaintiff, Karumbayee Ammal settled the suit property in favour of the plaintiff when he was a minor represented by his father Kaliyaperumal by way of a registered settlement deed dated 23.03.1978 and accordingly, delivered possession of the suit property to the plaintiff represented by his guardian and the plaintiff's guardian, on his behalf, accepted the settlement deed and continued to be in possession and enjoyment of the suit property by obtaining patta and paying kist and the plaintiff, on attaining majority, continued to be in possession and enjoyment of the property by obtaining patta in his name and accordingly, patta has been changed in the name of the plaintiff from old patta No. 118 to the new patta No. 1039 and except the plaintiff, no one including the defendants are entitled to the suit property and the defendant had not been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property at any point of time. The first defendant is the paternal uncle of the plaintiff and the second defendant is the son of the first defendant. The defendants claiming that they have title to the suit property and attempted to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff in respect of the suit property without any authority and hence, the plaintiff has been necessitated to lay the suit for appropriate reliefs.
5. The case of the defendants, in brief, is that the suit is not maintainable either in law or on facts. It is true that the suit property originally belonged to Karumbayee Ammal by way of her purchase under a registered sale deed dated 26.02.1938. However, it is false to state that Karumbayee Ammal, out of love and affection towards the plaintiff, settled the suit property in favour of the plaintiff, when he was a minor, represented by his guardian and that, the settlement deed had been accepted by the guardian on behalf of the plaintiff and been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property by obtaining patta, paying kist etc. and it is false to state that the plaintiff, on attaining majority, continued to remain in possession and enjoyment of the suit property by converting the patta in his name and that, the defendants attempted to interfere with his possession and enjoyment claiming that they have title to the suit property. Karumbayee Ammal had two sons viz. the plaintiff's father Kaliya Perumal and the first defendant and accordingly, Karumbayee Ammal and her two sons above stated were enjoying the suit property as well as the other properties belonging to the family and accordingly, Karumbayee Ammal, on account of her ill-health, decided to settle the properties stand in her name in favour of her sons and accordingly, settled the suit property by way of a registered settlement deed dated 23.03.1979. However, the plaintiff's father cunningly deceived Karumbayee Ammal, stealthily obtained the above settlement deed in the name of his son and only subsequent to the execution of the settlement deed, it has come to the knowledge of Karumbayee Ammal that the plaintiff's father had obtained the settlement in respect of the entire property in favour of his son and accordingly, when the plaintiff's father attempted to sell the suit propert
