The validity and binding nature of the settlement deed, the requirement of proof of execution under Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, and the applicability of the Hindu Succession Act were central to the judgment.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, against the decree and judgment passed by the Principal District Judge, Pudukkottai, dated 06.12.2019, made in O.S.No.23 of 2013.)

P.B. Balaji, J.

1. The present Appeal has been filed to set aside the judgment and decree in O.S.No.23 of 2013, dated 06.12.2019 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Pudukkottai.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per the ranking before the trial Court.

3. The unsuccessful defendants 4 and 5 are the appellants herein. The first respondent, as plaintiff, filed the suit in O.S.No.23 of 2013, seeking partition and separate possession of her 1/3rd share in the suit property. The claim of partition was on the basis of Ex.A2 - Will, dated 30.01.1970 said to have been executed by the grandmother of the plaintiff, one Kanagambujam.

4. Brief facts that are necessary for deciding the appeal suit are as follows:The suit property originally belonged to one Muthuvelammal, which was her self acquired property. She constructed a tiled thatched house in the property and was residing there till her life time. She was blessed with a daughter, one Kanagambujam, who in turn had two daughters, viz., Sagundala Devi and Kowsalya Devi. The said Sagundala Devi is the third defendant in the suit. Saguntala Devi initially married one Ragunath Suresh Pillai through whom she had six children, namely, Usha Rani, Jeyaprakash Narayanan, Modhilal Narayanan, Manjula Dhayanithi, Santharam and Umamaheswari. It is the case of the plaintiff that the said Sagundala Devi, even during the life time her first husband, married one Rajendran, and through whom she had two children by name, Subathra Priyadharshini and Mahindran. The children through the second husband - Rajendran are defendants 4 and 5 in the suit and the appellants before us.

5. It is further stated that Kowsalya Devi, the other daughter of Kanagambujam, released her share in favour of Sagundala Devi - the third defendant and thus the said Sagundala Devi became the absolute owner of the suit property. The grandmother of the plaintiff - Kanagambujam had executed an unregistered Will, dated 30.01.1970, under which, the suit property was bequeathed to the plaintiff and the first and second defendants. The said Kanagambujam died in 1973 and therefore, the Will came into effect and the plaintiff and the defendants 1 and 2 are entitled to 1/3rd share in the suit property. The plaintiff has further stated that since she got married in 1975 and left for Chennai and from there to Baroda, where the defendants 1 and 2 were also living and taking advantage of their absence, the third defendant changed the revenue records in her favour and on coming to know of the same, the plaintiff has come forward and filed the suit for partition and separate possession.

6. The third defendant filed a written statement (which was adopted by the defendants 4 and 5, namely, the appellants herein), as follows:

According to the third defendant, the fact that the suit property originally belonged to Muthuvelammal, being her self acquired property is admitted. Further, it is the case of the third defendant that Ragunath Suresh Pillai, first husband of the third defendant, filed H.M.O.P.No.40 of 1972 before the Baroda District Court, Baroda, seeking divorce and a decree was also granted by the Baroda District Court. Pursuant to which, the third defendant married Rajendran and through the said Rajendran, the defendants 4 and 5, namely the appellants were born. It was the specific case of the third defendant that on 26.09.2007, she executed a settlement deed in favour of the defendants 4 and 5, who are in absolute possession and enjoyment of the suit property. According to the third defendant, the plaintiff was fully aware of all these facts and has forged a Will in order to create interest in the suit property. It is also pleaded by the third defendant that the third defendant had cleared all the loans th