The main legal point established in the judgment is that the property was purchased with the income of the father, and the settlement deeds were obtained through fraud and coercion, leading to the entitlement of all children to an equal share in the property.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: These Appeals have been filed under Section 96 and Order 41 Rule 1 of C.P.C., to set aside the judgment and decree dated 14.09.2018 made in O.S.Nos.11665 & 11174 of 2010, on the file of the VI Additional Judge, City Civil Court at Chennai.)

Common Judgment

1. These Appeal Suits have been filed to set aside the judgment and decree dated 14.09.2018 made in O.S.Nos.11665 & 11174 of 2010, on the file of the VI Additional Judge, City Civil Court at Chennai.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned counsel for the respondents and perused the materials placed on record.

3. Despite there are three suit properties, the dispute revolves around the first item of the Schedule mentioned properties.

4. The appellant is the first defendant in both the suits. The plaintiff S.Anbunathan in O.S.No.11665 of 2010 and the plaintiff Kalavathi in O.S.No.11174 of 2010 are the brother and sister of the first defendant. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred with their names.

5. The short facts of the case are as follows:

The parents of both the plaintiffs and the first defendant were natives of Pondicherry; after some time, the parents came down to Chennai; the father of the plaintiffs viz., Subramanian joined as Salesman in R.M.Rao and Company in the year 1950; after some time, he bought the shop from its owners and developed the business; he had also run a shop by name Bagdad Stores on a partnership basis with one Balwant Singh, by adding his wife also as one of its partners; after some time, the plaintiffs' father purchased the shares of Balwant Singh as well.

5.1. With the money the father earned, he purchased the suit properties; the first item of the suit property was bought in the name of the plaintiffs' mother, though it was financed by the father himself; a house was built in the first item of the suit property by the father; he also had lot of savings and fixed deposit in various Banks; during his life time, he settled three houses in the name of his three daughters and left one house for his son; Subramanian died on 21.02.1989 by leaving his wife Maragathavalli, one son Anbunathan and three daughters viz., Shanthi, Nirmala and Kalavathi; after the death of the father, the mother was in enjoyment of the first item of the suit property.

5.2. One of the daughters of Subramanian viz., Nirmala's husband Kuppusamy was working in Electricity Board and later, he left the job and joined BHEL; he discontinued his job in BHEL also and thereafter, tried a few business with the help of the plaintiffs' father and lost money; after the death of the father Subramanian, the mother Maragathavalli used to stay in every daughters' house in alternative regular period; however, Nirmala influenced the mother and got the fixed deposits and jewels from her and also got the third item of the suit property in the name of Nirmala's husband.

5.3. Nirmala also influenced her mother to settle the first item of the suit property in her own name by excluding the other children; through a registered settlement deed dated 19.04.2010, the fact about the settlement deed came to the knowledge of the plaintiffs; thereafter, the other children of Maragathavalli (second defendant) enquired about it to Maragathavalli and she told that was not aware of the execution of the settlement deed; Nirmala could get the settlement deed from Maragathavalli by making some misrepresentation and coming to know about the existence of the settlement deed, the mother maragathavalli cancelled the same by way of executing the cancellation deed dated 03.05.2010; since the plaintiffs thought that the dispute is over with the cancellation of the settlement deed on 03.05.2010, Nirmala and her husband Kuppusamy came with rowdy elements and demolished the compound wall and gate; immediately, a complaint was lodged; when the police enquired Nirmala, they came to know about the fraudulent way in which another settlement deed was obtained by N