Back
R. SAKTHIVEL
L. Veeraiyan – Appellant
Versus
S. Thirupurasundari – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
This Second Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Decree dated August 10, 2021 passed in A.S.No.114 of 2019 by the 'learned V Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai' [henceforth 'First Appellate Court'], wherein and whereby the Judgment and Decree dated March 4, 2019 passed in O.S.No.3505 of 2016 by the 'learned XIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai' [henceforth 'Trial Court'] was confirmed.
2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be denoted as per their array in the Original Suit.
CASE OF THE PLAINTIFFS
3. In the amended Plaint, it is stated that the Suit Property and larger extent of properties were originally owned by one Raji Chettiar. The said Raji Chettiar executed a Settlement Deed in favour of his son - Loganathan Chettiar on April 21, 1930 in respect of the Suit Property and some more extent of properties. The said Loganathan Chettiar had three wives namely, Radhabai, Kamatchi and Lakshmi. Through his first wife Radhabai, daughter - Vijaya @ Vijayam (12th defendant) was born. The said Vijaya @ Vijayam had two sons and one daughter namely, Senthil, Uma (2nd defendant) and Sivaraman (11th defendant). The first plaintiff is th
The court ruled that the defendants failed to prove the validity of a Release Deed executed under undue influence, affirming the plaintiffs' entitlement to a share in the property.
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.
The court affirmed the validity of a Release Deed executed by a legal heir, emphasizing the burden of proof lies on the party disputing its execution.
Registered settlement deed proved under Evidence Act Section 68 proviso absent specific denial of execution; certified copy admissible if original lost; partition suit barred without cancelling deed.
A Settlement Deed executed with irrevocable terms cannot be unilaterally cancelled, and its interpretation must consider the entire document and the parties' intentions.
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....
Suit for partition – Minor - Right of avoidance based on the inequality of the shares is a personal right of the minors and cannot be exercised by others - Power is not a conditional power in the se....
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 centr....
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
