Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Mad) 5570

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
P.VADAMALAI, J.
P.Perumal (Died) – Appellant
Versus
Palanichamy – Respondent
S.A(MD)No.294 of 2013 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2013
Decided On : 04-07-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Mr. K. Balasundaram, Mr.R.Thangapandian
For the Respondent: Mr. H.Lakshmi Shankar

A registered settlement deed has statutory presumption of validity, and the burden to prove it invalid rests on the plaintiffs, which they failed to do, thereby affirming the deed and dismissing the partition suit.

Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code - Section 100 - Suit for partition - The plaintiffs challenged a settlement deed claiming it was sham and sought partition of property - The trial court upheld the validity of the deed, while the appellate court awarded the plaintiffs a 4/5 share - The second appeal addressed the legality of the settlement and the plaintiffs' proof of claim. (Paras 3, 4, 12, 30)

(B) Legal Principle - A registered document, bearing statutory presumption of validity, must be proven invalid by the challenging party; time limits for suits regarding property claims adhere strictly to statutory provisions. (Paras 26, 24)

Facts of the case:
The plaintiffs alleged that a settlement deed executed by their father was invalid and sought partition of the property claiming joint possession; the defendant contended the deed was valid and acted upon.

Findings of Court:
The trial court's judgment was restored confirming the settlement deed and dismissing the plaintiffs' claims, supported by evidence of possession and registration.

Issues: Whether the plaintiffs could prove the settlement deed was sham; whether the defendants had the rights as per the settlement; whether the claim was barred by limitation.

Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the plaintiffs did not establish that the settlement deed was a sham, holding that the settlement was valid and acted upon.

Result: Second Appeal Allowed.

Table of Content
1. parties involved and nature of claim (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. claim of the plaintiffs and defendants (Para 5 , 6)
3. issues framed by trial court (Para 7 , 9)
4. second appeal process and additional evidence (Para 8 , 12 , 13 , 14)
5. first appellate court's findings (Para 10 , 11)
6. arguments from defendants' counsel (Para 16 , 17 , 18)
7. counterarguments from plaintiffs' counsel (Para 21 , 22)
8. final court ruling based on evidence review (Para 28 , 29)

JUDGMENT :

This Second Appeal is filed again the judgment and decree, dated 02.11.2012 passed in A.S.No.5 of 2011 by the Fa Track Court-cum-Additional Dirict Sessions Judge, Dindigul, reversing the judgment and decree dated 24.08.2010 passed in O.S.No.108 of 2007 on the file of the Sub Court, Palani.

2. The appellants are the defendants in O.S.No.108 of 2007 on the file of the Sub Court, Palani. The respondents are the plaintiffs in that suit.

3. The respondents/plaintiffs have filed the suit for partition, permanent injunction and to cancel the settlement deed, dated 23.07.1963, executed by Palanichamy in favour of 1 defendant as it is not legally valid.

4. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred as plaintiffs and defendants as arrayed in O.S.No.108 of 2007 on the file of the Sub Court, Palani.

5. Case of the plaintiffs (according to plaint and reply atement):

The 1 defendant was born to one Palanichamy Naicker through his fir wife. After the death of fir wife, the said Palanichamy Naicker married the 1 plaintiff as 2^nd wife, through whom the plaintiffs 2 to 4 were born. The said Palanichamy, plaintiffs, and the 1 defendant were jointly enjoying the suit property. Palanichamy Naicker died in 1971, leaving them as his legal heirs. The plaintiffs are entitled to 4/5 share and the 1 defendant is entitled to 1/5 share in the suit property. The plaintiffs have been demanding the 1 defendant for partition. The 1 defendant has evaded the same. On 18.07.2007, the plaintiffs came to know that Palanichamy Naicker had executed a regiered settlement deed, dated 04.07.1963, in respect of the suit property in favour of 1 defendant. The said deed was sham nominal and void. The said settlement did not act upon. After the alleged settlement deed, the said Palanichamy had mortgaged the suit property to the husband of the 1 defendant on 16.04.1970. So, the said settlement deed, dated 04.07.1963 has not come into force. The plaintiffs and the 1 defendant are ill in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit property. It is false that the 1 plaintiff’s husband was died in 1972. He died on 02.09.1975. The 1 defendant admitted in her reply notice that the plaintiffs were given part share in the properties on humanitarian ground and hence, the plaintiffs were asked not to diurb the 1 defendant’s possession and enjoyment of half share. Hence, the suit is filed for partition and other reliefs.

6. Case of 1 Defendant (as per Written atement and Additional Written atement)

There is no relationship of husband and wife between Palanichamy and the 1 plaintiff. The plaintiffs were not in joint possession and enjoyment over the suit property at any point of time. The suit property measuring 6 acres 50 cents originally comprised in Jamin Bymash number 113/3 and the same was given to Palanichamy by the Zamin and then renumbered as S.No.444/1. At the time of marriage of 1 defendant, her father Palanichamy, possessed several field lands worth Rs.1,500/-and punja land worth Rs.200/-. Her father Palanichamy, had conveyed the suit property towards marriage seer to her by way of regiered settlement deed, dated 23.07.1963 and possession of the suit property was handed over on that date itself. These particulars were specifically mentioned in the settlement deed. The settlement deed was acted upon as the deed was handed over to the defendant. The fir defendant’s father Palanichamy had also owned properties measuring 4 acres 48 cents in S.No.455/1, 23 cents in S.No.456/4, and half share in well in 10 ce