A properly executed settlement deed is binding and cannot be revoked unilaterally; minors can validly receive property through such transfers.

Headnote:
Settlement - Property Disputes - Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Sections 7, 11, 126; Kerala Survey and Boundaries Act, 1961 - Sections 4, 9, 10, 13, 14 - The court affirmed the validity of a settlement deed executed by the donor, elucidating the need for proper execution, acceptance, and the implications of the Transfer of Property Act in property transfers, especially concerning minors and boundaries.
Fact of the Case:

Plaintiffs sought a declaration of ownership, injunction against the defendants for construction and removal of boundaries based on a settlement deed executed by their father. Defendants contended the settlement deed was forged, and the properties belonged entirely to them.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the settlement deed was executed and acted upon correctly, rejecting claims that it was fraudulent. The plaintiffs were deemed valid owners of the properties as per the deed, and prior arguments against its validity were dismissed.
Issues: Key issues included the execution validity of the settlement deed, the legal standing of minor transferees, and whether the subsequent survey subdivisions could be contested in court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court maintained that a validly executed and accepted settlement deed cannot be unilaterally revoked; moreover, minor transferees are not legally disqualified from receiving property under the Transfer of Property Act.
Final Decision: The Regular Second Appeals were dismissed, affirming the lower court's rulings.

JUDGMENT

R.S.A.Nos.40 of 2007 and 1122 of 2006 have been filed against the judgment and decree in O.S.No.654 of 1989 on the file of Munsiff's Court, Neyyattinkara. R.S.A.No.262 of 2007, 1172 of 2006 and 35 of 2007 arose out of the judgment and decree in O.S.No.361 of 1992 on the file of Munsiff's Court, Neyyattinkara.

2. O.S.Nos.654 of 1989 and 361 of 1992 have been tried jointly and a common judgment was passed. O.S.No.654/1989 was taken as the leading case and evidence was adduced in it. O.S.No.654 of 1989 has been filed for declaration and permanent prohibitory injunction and subsequently amended including a prayer for fixation of boundary also.

3. Plaintiff in O.S.No.654/1989 is Viswanathan Nadar, S/o.Kochukunjan Nadar. Plaint A and B schedule properties originally belonged to father, Kochukunjan Nadar, of the plaintiff and defendants. Kochukunjan Nadar gave permission to the plaintiff to put up a building in plaint A schedule property which is having an extent of 11 cents out of total 68 cents of property belonging to him. On the basis of the permission given by the father, he completed the construction in plaint A schedule and started residence therein. First defendant was also given permission to put up building in the property which is lying south to plaint A schedule property and he also put up a basement for constructing a building. Subsequently, a settlement deed, Ext.A1 dated 16.12.1987 was executed, as per which plaint A schedule property was given to the plaintiff and B schedule property to the first defendant. The gift was accepted by the plaintiff on the very same day and even though the possession was initially reserved by the father, subsequently he granted possession of the property around the building in A schedule. As per Ext.A1, the ownership of the property is vested with the plaintiff and hence he is entitled to get the remedies claimed in the suit. Defendant No.1 also accepted the gift deed. He also proceeded with the construction of the building in B schedule property and it reached upto the lindle level but defendant made some wooden framework abutting the plaintiff's property for constructing concrete porch. It abuts more than 6 ft. to plaint A schedule property and the first defendant is making attempt to put concrete on the wooden structure and to make it a permanent one. It will cause irreparable injuries to the plaintiff and is also against the building rules. 2^nd defendant, another brother of the plaintiff, is also causing obstruction to the construction of northern boundary wall of A schedule property. Hence plaintiff stopped the construction work. But the defendant is trying to destroy the boundary wall put up by the plaintiff and constructed a new boundary wall including plaint A schedule property. Before the visit of the Commissioner, first defendant demolished the boundary between plaint A and B schedule properties. Hence the plaint was amended seeking to fix the southern boundary of plaint A schedule property and to declare the plaintiff's title and possession over plaint A schedule property and restraining the 1^st defendant from further constructing building abutting plaint A schedule property and directing the 1^st defendant to remove 'thattu' constructed in the vacant land over the plaint A schedule property and further restraining the 2^nd defendant from tampering the northern boundary of the plaint A schedule property.

4. Defendants filed written statement contending that the plaintiff has no manner of right or possession over the scheduled property. There is no property described in the plaint in existence. No permission was given to the plaintiff for constructing a house as alleged, by the father. He has not constructed any house in 68 cents of property. Kochukunjan Nadar, his wife and first defendant are residing in the building in the property having an extent of 68 cents. Another building is also there in the property belonging to Augustine, another son of Kochukunjan Nadar. 1^st defe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2023 Supreme(Online)(KER) 28206

A properly executed settlement deed is binding and cannot be revoked unilaterally; minors can validly receive property through such transfers.

Cases Referred (2)