2019 Supreme(Mad) 1246

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
M.M. SUNDRESH, KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, JJ.
B. Saroja Ammal (Deceased) – Appellant
Versus
Murali Doss – Respondent
Original Side Appeal No. 405 of 2010
Decided On : 04-01-2019

Headnote:

Succession Act, 1925 - Section 2(h) - Suit for peaceful possession and enjoyment - Suit for permanent injunction - Suit property originally belonged to one who had two wives - His first wife predeceased him - However he had no issues out of first wedlock - Said while working in Burma had close association with - Evenafter their return to India their friendship continued to be so - Since had no issues despite his second marriage with himself and his wife adopted plaintiff who is none other than son of his friend - In year said executed a settlement deed settling suit property in favour of his two wives for life interest and thereafter to father of plaintiff viz and his brother-in-law by name who is brother of his second wife - Subsequently in year he revoked settlement deed by executing another settlement deed i.e - Plaintiff further averred that his marriage was performed by and he was living with them - After death at request of plaintiff brought his biological parents and his family members to live along with him in his place - Due to some quarrel between and sisters of plaintiff asked family members to get out of suit property in - Subsequently died - After her death defendants are claiming share in property by virtue of a settlement which was subsequently got anulled by virtue of another settlement deed - Since defendants attempted to dispossess plaintiff from suit property he filed suit for declaration declaring him as a owner of suit property and for permanent injunction restraining defendants from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit property - Whether plaintiff is adopted son of and whether adoption is true legal and valid? Whether settlement deed is legal valid and binding and given effect to? Whether revocation deed is legal and valid? Whether there was a family arrangement and whether suit property was allotted to plaintiff? Whether plaintiff is sole and absolute owner of suit property and whether he perfected his title by adverse possession? Whether plaintiff and defendants are co-owners and co-sharers and whether they are entitled to equal shares in suit property? Whether plaintiff is entitled to suit relief?To what relief parties are entitled to? Whether Single Judge is right in treating settlement deed as a Will? Whether Single Judge is right in holding that by virtue of cancellation of settlement deed through revocation deed is valid? Whether appellants are entitled to any share in suit property in terms of? - Held, Against plaintiff - Validity of settlement deed and revocation deed Judge found settlement deed to be a Will and answered issue No to effect that Will was found validly revoked and consequently answered issue No to effect that revocation deed cancelling settlement deed is valid - Further plaintiff also did not produce any document to prove same - Therefore single Judge answered Issue No against plaintiff - Claim of plaintiff that he is absolute owner of suit property and he perfected title over same by adverse possession Single Judge answered said issue against plaintiff as there was no evidence about his possession of property till when took possession thereof and he was living there - Rather it was first defendant wife of was living in suit property up to which fact was even admitted by plaintiff that after his mother was living in suit premises - Therefore there is no adverse claim that could be made by plaintiff who is none but son of and when he was away from suit property between owing to his employment in Indian Air-force - Plaintiff and defendants are co-owners and as co-sharers they are entitled to equal shares in suit property single Judge answered said issue against plaintiff on ground that since was found to be a Will and not a settlement deed there is no question of co-owners and they are not entitled to equal shares in suit property - Plaintiff-s entitlement to relief sought for Single Judge rejected relief of declaration to declare him as owner of suit property - However with regard to relief of permanent injunction granted same thereby restraining defendants or their men or agents or any persons claiming through or under them from in any way interfering with plaintiff-s peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit property as they are no way connected with property and they cannot claim any right over suit property based on since settlement deed was revoked by and by virtue of defendants not at all entitled to any share in suit property - Plaintiff as not owner of property since he is having possession of property protected his possession against all others except true owner i.e - By holding so partly allowed suit and answered Issue No accordingly - Settlor had life interest over suit property obviously disposition will come into effect only after settlors life time - Further it is seen that contained a clause for revocation which clearly depicts character of a Will - Therefore it is clear that settlor reserved his right to revoke settlement deed - This was well founded by Single Judge and treated as a Will and rightly came to conclusion that settlor had right to revoke settlement deed during his life time and by invoking such revocation clause in settlor had revoked and executed another settlement deed-and as valid - Appeal Dismissed