The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for plaintiffs to prove the allotment of property by the Slum Clearance Board and the validity of ownership rights established by the first defendant.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Appeal Suit has been filed under Section 96 C.P.C & read with Order XLI, Rule 1 of C.P.C., to set aside the judgment and decree dated 05.04.2016 made in O.S.No.5008 of 2014 on the file of XIX Additional District Judge, City Civil Court Chennai.)

1. The unsuccessful plaintiffs are the appellants before this Court. The suit was for partition and delivery of separate possession of the suit property.

2. Before the Trial Court, the appellants contended that, in the year 1990, the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board allotted the suit property to their mother Chinna Ponnu. The said Chinna Ponnu died on 27.11.1994 leaving behind the plaintiffs and the defendants 1 and 2 as her legal heirs. The first defendant is the father of the plaintiffs and the second defendant. On the demise of Chinna Ponnu, the suit property devolved on her first class legal heirs namely the plaintiffs and the two defendants at the ratio of ¼th shares each. Being the husband and children of the deceased Hindu Female. The defendants 3 and 4 are the minor sons of the 2nd defendant. They are impleaded in the suit since, the first defendant on the death of his wife Chinna Ponnu, vide his letter dated 26/05/1999 sought for the transfer of allotment in his name and pursuant to his request, the sale deed was executed in the name of the first defendant on 03.12.2012. The first defendant in turn had settled the property in favour of the defendants 3 and 4, who are his grand children born to his son Raja the second defendant. Though the plaintiffs have contributed money for the purchase of the suit property and its development, the first defendant had created the sham and nominal settlement deed on 29.05.2013 in favour of the defendants 3 and 4, without the knowledge of the plaintiffs.

3. It is pleaded by the plaintiffs that the suit property is the property of their deceased mother. The first defendant cannot claim absolute right in the suit property. Only to usurp the property and dispossess the plaintiffs, the settlement deed dated 29.05.2013 was created. When the first defendant tried to dispossess the plaintiffs on 31.08.2014, the attempt was thwarted with the help of the well wishers. The first defendant cannot interfere with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property being the co-owners, entitled for ¼th shares each.

4. In the written statement, the respondent refuting all the plaint averments. The suit property was originally allotted to the first defendant in the year 2000. The allotment was made to the persons, who were in possession of the property for a long time. The first defendant was in possession of the suit property since 1992 and put up construction during the year 1997. Hence, the Slum Clearance Board allotted the suit property to him. On such allotment, the first defendant paid the cost of the plot in instalments. On payment of entire cost, the Slum Clearance Board executed the sale deed in favour of the first defendant on 15.11.2012. The first defendant is the absolute owner of the suit property. The Tax for the suit property is assessed in the name of the first defendant. Electricity Service connection to the suit property is provided in his name. Out of love and affection, he has settled the suit property to his grand sons by way of a registered settlement deed dated 29.05.2013 and same is valid and enforceable.

5. The Slum Clearance Board never allotted the suit property to Chinna Ponnu as alleged by the plaintiffs. The allotment was made only in the year 2000, whereas, Chinna Ponnu died 6 years earlier to the date of allotment. The suit property was not in joint possession along with the plaintiffs, as alleged in the plaint. The first defendant was the absolute owner of the property and was in his enjoyment exclusively till the property was settled in favour of the defendants 3 and 4 out of love and affection. The said settlement deed is not a sham and nominal deed. The first defendant paid the entire sale consideration