Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA
J.Dhanalakshmi – Appellant
Versus
H.Mageswari - Respondent
S.A.Nos.432 and 436 of 2023 and C.M.P.No.13200 and 13241 of 2023
Decided on : 03-04-2024
RECTIFICATION - PROPERTY DISPUTE - C.P.C. Section 100, Specific Relief Act Section 26 - The court discussed the validity of a rectification deed executed by the settlor, E.Radhakrishnan, in light of the original settlement deed. It emphasized that the rectification was necessary to clarify the common passage's allocation among the parties, which had been ambiguously defined in the original deed. The court interpreted Section 26 of the Specific Relief Act, allowing rectification when the instrument does not express the real intention of the parties due to mutual mistake. This legal framework influenced the court's decision to uphold the rectification deed, asserting that the settlor had the right to rectify the deed to reflect his true intentions.
Fact of the Case:
The case involves two second appeals concerning property disputes arising from a settlement deed executed by E.Radhakrishnan. The plaintiff sought to cancel a rectification deed that altered the dimensions of an undivided share of land, claiming it was executed without her knowledge and was against the principles of equity. The defendant argued that the rectification was necessary to resolve ambiguities in the original settlement deed.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the rectification deed was valid and necessary to clarify the common passage's allocation among the parties. It determined that the settlor had the right to rectify the deed to reflect his true intentions, which had not been adequately expressed in the original settlement deed.
Issues: 1. Whether the first appellate Court was correct in declaring the rectification deed invalid despite the settlor's intention? 2. Whether the executant can rectify an error apparent on the face of the record for proper enjoyment of the properties?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the settlor's intention, as expressed in the original settlement deed, was paramount. The rectification deed was deemed valid as it clarified the common passage's allocation, which had been a source of dispute. The court emphasized the importance of interpreting the documents to give effect to the settlor's true intentions.
Final Decision: The second appeals were allowed, and the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court were set aside, affirming the validity of the rectification deed.
JUDGMENT :
THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA
Prayer in S.A.No.436 of 2023: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of C.P.C to set aside the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.42 of 2019 by the Sub Court, Poonamallee dated 14.12.2022 which reversing the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.39 of 2011 by the Principal District Munsif Court at Poonamalle dated 30.01.2019.
Prayer in S.A.No.432 of 2023: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of C.P.C to set aside the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.43 of 2019 by the Sub Court, Poonamallee dated 14.12.2022 which reversing the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.306 of 2010 by the Principal District Munsif Court at Poonamalle dated 30.01.2019.
The above two appeals arise in respect of a dispute relating to the same property. The two Second Appeals with their corresponding First Appeal numbers and the suit numbers are herein below set out.
2. S.A.No.436 of 2023 is filed challenging the judgment and decree in A.S.No.42 of 2019 on the file of the Sub Judge, Poonamallee which in turn has been filed challenging the judgment and decree in O.S.No.39 of 2011 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Poonamallee.
3. S.A.No.432 of 2023 is filed challenging the judgment and decree in A.S.No.43 of 2019 on the file of the Sub Judge, Poonamallee which in turn has been filed challenging the judgment and decree in O.S.No.306 of 2010 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Poonamallee. Both the appeals have been filed by the plaintiff.
4. O.S.No.39 of 2011 has been filed for cancelling the rectification deed executed by E.Radhakrishnan, the defendant therein dated 15.07.2010.
5. O.S.No.306 of 2010 has been filed for an injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents or any other persons through them from raising any building by encroaching the undivided share of 1520 sq.ft. of land of the suit property. This suit has been filed against one J.Dhanalakshmi and minor S.Naveenraj. The parties are referred to in the same ranking as in the suit O.S.No.306 of 2010 and the defendant in O.S.No.39 of 2011 is referred by his name, Radha Krishnan.
Plaint in O.S.No.39 of 2011:-
6. It is the case of the plaintiff that E.Radhakrishnan, the sole defendant in O.S.No.39 of 2011 was the absolute owner of the land measuring 3781 sq.ft. and the building consisting of ground and a first floor totally measuring 1622 sq.ft. i.e; 811 sq.ft. for each floor which has been described the “A” schedule property. On 10.12.2003, the said E.Radhakrishnan had executed an irrevocable settlement deed under which he had made the following settlements:-
(a) 2261 sq.ft. of vacant land was settled on the eldest son R.Ravichandran along with the land a right of usage of the 6 feet common passage was also granted to the eldest son. The property settled on the eldest son has been described as the B schedule in the settlement deed.
(b) The grandson of the settler, minor S.Navinraj through the 2nd son R.Sampath Raj was allotted an undivided share of 1520 sq.ft. of land together with 811 sq.ft. built up area in the ground floor. He was also given a right of usage in the six feet wide common passage.
(c) The 3rd son R.Harikrishnan was allotted an undivided share in the 1520 sq.ft. of land together with the 1st floor of the building measuring 811 sq.ft. and a right of usage of the six feet wide common passage. The property allotted to the share of the Naveenraj has been described as the C schedule and the property allotted to Harikrishanan has been described as the D schedule in the settlement deed. His grandson Naveenraj and his son Harikrishnan has been jointly allotted the extent of 1520 sq.ft.
(d) The property which has been allotted to Naveenraj and Harikrishnan abuts the street called Nakkeeran Street. The property that has been allotted to Ravichandran is the rear portion behind the share allotted to Naveenraj and Harikrishnan. The property that has been allotted to him is in an inverted ‘L’ shape.
7. It is the case of th
AI
The court established that a settlor has the right to rectify a settlement deed to accurately reflect their intentions, especially when ambiguities lead to disputes among parties.
A rectification deed can be validly executed to correct prior settlement deeds to reflect the true intentions of the parties, provided the settlor retains authority over the property.
(1) Settlement deed/Will – Whether a document is a Settlement Deed or Will, Court has to examine the document as a whole and to look into substance thereof and also to know intention of parties – For....
Point of law: As far as section 92 of the Evidence Act is concerned, the said provision also would not be applicable as the evidence adduced by the plaintiffs was that the document itself was never a....
A registered sale deed cannot be unilaterally altered by a rectification deed, and rights established by such a deed are protected under law.
Settlement deeds executed without valid ownership rights are invalid and cannot confer any title, rendering subsequent deeds likewise unenforceable.
Failure to challenge a settlement deed within the limitation period extinguishes rights to claim co-ownership, and prior consent can estop parties from succeeding in partition claims.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
