Settlement deeds executed in favor of a spouse are valid; the burden of proving joint family ownership rests on the party asserting it. Courts must acknowledge the legal validity of established documents.

JUDGMENT :

T.V. Thamilselvi, J.

This Second Appeal is filed praying to set aside the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.7 of 2007 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Thiruvannamalai, dated 12.10.2007, by which the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, confirmed the judgment and decree dated 22.12.2006 passed in O.S.No.346 of 2005 on the file of Additional District Munsif of Thiruvannamalai.

2. At the time of admission of this Second Appeal, this court admitted the Second Appeal on the following substantial questions of law:-

“1. Whether the courts below are right in coming to the conclusion that the suit property is not the self-acquired property of Mannar Gounder, which had been validly settled in favour of Pachaimmal, who had settled the same in favour of the plaintiffs/appellants as stated by them ?

2. Whether the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court is right in holding that the settlement in favour of the appellants is non-est in the eyes of law ?”

3. The appellants herein are the plaintiffs in the suit in O.S.No.346 of 2005. Before the trial court, the plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration and delivery of possession and other alternate reliefs against the respondent/defendant.

4. The suit was contested by the defendant by filing written statement. After analysing the evidence on record, the trial Judge dismissed the suit. Against which, the plaintiffs filed an appeal in A.S.No.7 of 2007. The learned Judge, First Appellate Court, after appreciating the entire pleadings, evidence and findings of the trial Judge, concurred with the view of the trial Judge and dismissed the Appeal in A.S.No.7 of 2007. Aggrieved by the said concurrent findings of the courts below, the plaintiffs/appellants have preferred this Second Appeal.

5. For the sake of convenience, the parties are addressed as per their ranking before the trial court.

6. The brief facts of the case is as follows:-

(a) According to the plaintiffs, the suit property as described in the plaint was to an extent of 26 cents in Old Survey No.42/13 New Survey No.47/1 along with other properties were self-acquired property of one Mannar Gounder who purchased the properties through 3 sale deeds of the year 1956, 1963 and 1964. The said Mannar Gounder has two wives and the defendant is the son of Mannar Gounder born through his 1^st wife Mannu Ammal. After demise of the 1^st wife, he married one Pachai Ammal as second wife. Through him, he begotten one son viz., Saravanan and two daughters.

(b) The plaintiffs herein are the sons of the said Saravanan and grandsons of Mannar Gounder and his second wife Pachai Ammal. The plaintiffs contend that the said Mannar Gounder had one brother Muthusamy and they enjoyed their ancestral property. Out of oral partition, he got 2 acres of dry lands. Thereafter, on his own efforts, he purchased 3 items of property through 3 sale deeds. Out of love and affection, the self-acquired property of Mannar Gounder was settled in favour of his 2^nd wife on 11.12.1974 and the said settlement was duly executed and attested and the settlement deeds were delivered to the Settlee and possession also handed over to her and her sons. From 1974 onwards, Pachai Ammal was also in enjoyment and possession of the said property; patta was also transferred in her name. Thereafter, the said Pachai Ammal, out of love and affection towards her sons, executed registered settlement deed dated 03.11.2004, through which she gave the property which was given by her husband in the year 1974 and delivered properties to the plaintiffs. Thereafter, they are in possession and enjoyment of the said properties and patta a