Back
2020 Supreme(Mad) 1495
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G. JAYACHANDRAN, J.
Nallangi Konar – Appellant
Versus
Kumaresan & Another – Respondents
S.A. No. 1123 of 2010 & M.P. No. 1 of 2010
Decided on : 15-10-2020
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :S. Kamadevan, Advocate.
For the Respondents:V. Rajesh, Advocate.
Validity and irrevocability of settlement deed, entitlement to relief of declaration and injunction based on ownership and possession of property.
Headnote:
Cancellation of Settlement - Property Dispute - Civil Procedure Code, Section 100 - Ex.A.2, Ex.A.1
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and injunction claiming ownership of a property purchased from Pichayee. The defendant contested the suit, arguing that the plaintiff did not have absolute ownership of the property.
Finding of the Court:
The Trial Court and the Appellate Court both found in favor of the plaintiff, holding that the settlement deed in favor of Pichayee was valid and irrevocable, and the subsequent cancellation was void. The plaintiff was granted relief of declaration and injunction.
Issues: Dispute over ownership of property, validity of settlement deed and subsequent cancellation, entitlement to relief of declaration and injunction.
Ratio Decidendi: The settlement deed in favor of Pichayee was found to be valid and irrevocable, and the subsequent cancellation was deemed void. The plaintiff was held to be entitled to relief of declaration and injunction based on the evidence presented.
Final Decision: The Second Appeal was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the respondent. The decision of the lower courts was upheld.
JUDGMENT :
(Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, praying against the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.2 of 2005 dated 27.08.2009, on the file of Subordinate Judge, Attur, confirming the judgment and decree in O.S.No.387/1996 on the file of District Munsif, Attur, dated 29.04.2004.)
(The case has been heard through video conference)
1. Heard the Learned Counsel for the appellant and the Learned Counsel for the respondent No.1.
2. This Second Appeal is filed by the 2nd defendant/Nallangi Konar in the suit aggrieved by the concurrent findings of the Courts below. The suit O.S.No.387 of 1996 was filed by the Kumaresan through his mother against Chinnasamy Konar and Nallangi Konar (Appellant herein) for declaration and injunction in respect of suit property.
3. According to the plaint, the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit property which was purchased in his name from one Pichayee on 24.11.1995 for valuable consideration. The said Pichayee is the daughter of the 1st defendant. The plaintiff vendor Pichayee got the property through settlement deed dated 06.06.1983 executed by her father, the 1st defendant and same was sold by Pichayee for consideration of Rs.33,000/- to the plaintiff on 24.11.1995. After the alienation of the property by her daughter, the 1st defendant with ulterior motive on 07.12.1995 cancelled the settlement deed executed in favour of his daughter Pichayee. The said cancellation deed is void, invalid and not binding on the plaintiff. However, after illegal and invalid cancellation of the settlement deed, the defendant Nos.1 & 2 joint together and tried to disposes the plaintiff forcibly. Hence, the suit for declaration and consequential injunction is prayed for.
4. The defendant contested the suit on the ground that the plaintiff is not the absolute owner of the property. The sale deed executed by Pichayee in favour of the plaintiff on 24.11.1995 is not a valid transaction since the settlement in favour of Pichayee was cancelled by the 1st defendant prior to the alienation and said cancellation was registered subsequently. The settlement deed in favour of Pichayee by the 1st defendant is a sham and nominal document not acted upon. The possession was not given to Pichayee pursuant to the said settlement deed. Hence, it was cancelled subsequently on 07.12.1995. The property being an ancestral property, 1st defendant has no right to settle the property in favour of Pichayee.
5. The Trial Court, on considering the evidence both documentary and oral has held that, the suit property is a self acquired property of the 1st defendant. He has absolute right to settle the property. The settlement deed (Ex.A.2) dated 06.06.1983 is valid and irrevocable. The subsequent cancellation is void. Pursuant to the settlement deed, the property has absolutely got vested with Pichayee. The said Pichayeee in turn has sold the property to the plaintiff for valuable consideration. Hence, the plaintiff is entitled for relief of declaration and injunction.
6. Aggrieved by the said decree, the plaintiff has preferred the appeal before the Subordinate Court, Attur.
7. The Appellate Court, on re-appreciation of the evidence affirmed the decree of the Trial Court. Having settled the self acquired property in favour of his daughter, the 1st defendant is estopped from cancelling the settlement deed. The recital of the settlement deed (Ex.A.2) reveals that the property was transferred in praesenti to Pichayee and the said Pichayee has given the possession to the plaintiff on execution of the sale deed (Ex.A.1) dated 24.11.1995.
8. The Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the settlement deed dated 06.06.1983 in favour of Pichayee was not acted upon and she never took possession of the property. Therefore, the cancellation of settlement executed by the 1st defendant is valid and the declaration of title as well as injunction ought not to have been decreed in favour of the plaintiff/respo
