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.

JUDGMENT :

(P.T. Asha, J.)

(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 judgement and decree passed in O.S.No.306 of 2010 by the Principal District Munsif Court at Poonamalle dated 30.01.2019.)

(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 judgement and decree passed in O.S.No.39 of 2011 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 judgement 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 judgement 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 the plaintiff t