The court affirmed that properties purchased in the name of a spouse for family welfare are not self-acquired and that settlement deeds executed without consent of all heirs are void.

JUDGMENT :

M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.

The unsuccessful defendants have preferred this First Appeal. The suit has been filed for seeking partition and for declaration. The trial Court decreed the suit that the parties to the suit are entitled to get 1/5 share each. It is declared that the settlement deed executed by the first defendant as null and void. The relief of permanent injunction granted against the defendants.

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

3.Brief case of the plaintiffs is as follows:-

The plaintiffs, 2^nd and 3^rd defendants are siblings, born to the first defendant and her husband Mr.P.Irungovel. The suit schedule properties were purchased by Late.Mr.P.Irungovel in his wife name. The first suit schedule property was purchased on 30.04.1962 vide document No.1271/1962 in the name of first defendant. The suit second schedule property was purchased on 12.07.1965 by the said Mr.Irangovel in the name of the first defendant. The properties were purchased for the benefit of his family members. The first suit schedule property is in join possession of the family members. In the year 1975, the said Mr.P.Irangovel left the family and the first plaintiff had maintained the entire family. He constructed a house in suit second schedule property on his own money and got electricity connection and drinking water connection. The second suit schedule property consists three portions. The said Mr.P.Irangovel died on 29.07.2006. Both suit schedule properties are in joint possession plaintiffs and the defendants. The plaintiffs made paper publication in Dinamalar on 05.03.2012 stating that the suit schedule properties are joint family properties. The first defendant on 12.03.2012 gave a reply paper publication. The plaintiffs came to know that on 25.04.2012, the first defendant has registered a settlement deed in favour of the second defendant in respect of the first suit schedule property. The first and second defendants try to take shelter under the umbrella of customs and usage of Nankudi Vellalah Community. The title deeds of the first suit schedule property is in the hands of the first plaintiff. The first defendant has no right to execute gift settlement deed. Hence, the suit.

4.Brief case of the defendants is as follows:-

The second defendant filed written statement and the same was adopted by the first defendant. The first defendant married Mr.P.Irangovel in the year 1952 and thereafter, he left the first defendant. He got second marriage with one Muthammal on 24.04.1977. The first defendant sold her sreethana properties and solemnized the marriage of the second defendant. The first defendant had executed settlement deed in favour of the second defendant. The said Irangovel left the house since the first defendant had settled her sreethana properties in favour of the second defendant. After 1977, the said Irangovel has not returned to their home. The suit schedule properties are self acquired properties of the first defendant and the same is in possession of the first defendant. After execution of settlement deed, the suit schedule properties are in possession of the second defendant. The plaintiffs and the third defendant have no right in the suit schedule properties and prayed for dismissal of the suit.

5.Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court has framed the following issues:-

1.Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for partition as prayed for?

2.Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to get a relief of declaration declaring the settlement deed dated 25.04.2012 as null and void?

3.Whether the plaintiffs is entitled for permanent injunction?

4.Whether the suit schedule properties were purchased by the Late.Irangovel in the name of his wife for the benefit of the their family?

5.Whether the first defendant is the name lender in the sale deed dated 30.04.1962 and 12.07.1965?

6.What other reliefs the plaintiffs are entitled?

On the side of the plaintiffs, the first plaintiff was examined a