The court reaffirmed that personal laws govern inheritance claims despite statutory provisions; fraudulent documents invalidate subsequent property claims.

JUDGMENT :

K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI, J.

1. The Second Appeal is directed against the decree and judgment dated 18.08.2022 passed in A.S. No.109 of 2020, on the file of the XV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, reversing the Judgment and decree dated 13.12.2019 passed in O.S. No.3487 of 2014, on the file of the V Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.

2. The appellants are the defendants 1 and 4 in O.S. No.3487/2014 on the file of the V Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.

3. The 1^st respondent as plaintiff filed the above suit in O.S. No.3487/2014 for the following reliefs:

a) to declare that the cancellation of settlement deed dated 17.12.1990 bearing document No.2040/1990 and registered on 19.12.1990 at SRO, Royapuram, alleged to have been executed by deceased R. Kannappa Naicker as null and void and not binding on the plaintiff.

b) To declare that the settlement deed dated 27.12.1991 bearing Doc No.2541/1991 at SRO, Royapuram, alleged to have been executed by deceased R.Kannappa Naicker in favour of the 1^st and 4^th defendant as null and void and not binding on the plaintiff.

c) To declare that the legal heir certificate bearing serial No.1086/92 and D.Dis.A6/26210/1992 dated 01.10.1992 issued by the 7^th defendant, the Tahsildar, Fort Tondiarpet Taluk, Chennai 3 as null and void and not binding on the plaintiff.

d) To declare that the order of name transfer in the allotment in favour of the 1^st defendant by the 5^th defendant’s proceeding No.7005/94/E1 dated 06.04.1994 as null and void and not binding on the plaintiff and consequently directed the 5^th defendant to to transfer the allotment in favour of all the legal heirs of Late Kannanna Naicker, i.e., plaintiff and 1^st to 3^rd defendants.

e) To declare that the sale deed dated 29.07.2003 bearing No.2424/2003 executed by the 5^th defendant in favour of the 1^st defendant on 27.08.2003 before the SRO, Royapuram, as null and void and not binding on the plaintiff.

(f) To pass a preliminary decree of partition by dividing of the schedule of property into four shares and to allot one share to the plaintiff and to hand over the vacant possession of ¼ share of the plaintiff by metes and bounds.

g) To grant permanent injunction restraining the 1^st to 4^th defendants their men, agents, assigns or any other person claiming under them from dealing with the schedule of property in any manner encumbering or conveying the same to any other persons.

h) To direct the 1^st and 4^th defendants severally and jointly to pay Rs.1,000/- per month as mesne profit from June 2014 till the delivery of the separate possession of the schedule to property.

i) To direct the 1^st to 4^th defendants to pay the cost of the suit to the plaintiff.

4. The case of the plaintiff is that Plot No. 66, Door No.4, Cheriyan Nagar, New Washermenpet, Chennai 600 081 was allotted by the 5^th defendant , Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board to one Kannappa Naicker by its proceedings dated 02.02.1984. The said Kannappan was owning ancestral property at Vandhavasi, who died on 20.07.1992 and his wife Andal pre deceased him leaving behind a son and three daughters, namely, Mani, Rani, Ragini and Radika. The said Ragini is the plaintiff in the above suit. According to her, her father Kannappa Naicker settled the property situate at Nuthambadi village to the defendants 1 to 3 and during 1984, he executed an irrevocable settlement deed dated 17.03.1984 settling the suit property in her favour. Thereafter, the plaintiff put up a pacca construction with the income of her husband and all th