The court upheld the principle that established title through valid documentation outweighs unproven claims of family settlements in property disputes.

J U D G M E N T

----------------------

Defendants 1 to 6 have come up in Second Appeal challenging the concurrent finding and decree passed against them by the courts below.

2. Respondent claimed that the suit property belonged to him as per Ext.A1, settlement deed which was subject to a life estate interest in favour one Mariamma, widow of the eldest brother of respondent. She was permitted to reside in the building in the suit property until she remained unmarried. Appellant No.1 is the daughter of the life estate holder. Appellant Nos.2, 3 and 5 are the children of appellant No.1. Appellant No.6 is the husband of the sister of appellant No.1. Respondent claimed that during the time the life estate holder was residing in the suit property her children and grand children were also staying there. The life estate holder died on 14.12.1997. In the year 1998 respondent filed the suit for recovery of possession of the suit property with mesne profits and for other reliefs. Appellants resisted the suit contending that respondent did not get right or possession over the suit property as per Ext.A1 and claimed title and possession for themselves. They claimed that after the death of the father of appellant No.1 (husband of the life estate holder) respondent's father assigned 1.88 acres to the respondent as per document No.2096/1960 which he sold to another person. Appellant No.1 made a claim over the said property. That was mediated and the dispute was settled as per which appellant No.1 gave up her claim over the 1.88 acres in consideration of respondent giving up his claim over the suit property in favour of appellant No.1. Appellant No.1 filed O.S. No.240 of 2001 seeking partition of the suit property in the Munsiff's court. That suit was transferred to the court of learned Sub Judge where the present suit was pending. But at the time of trail appellant No.1 withdrew the suit for partition with liberty to file fresh suit (I am told that subsequently a suit for partition has been filed). Respondent gave evidence as P.W.1 and proved Exts.A1 to A5. Appellant No.1 gave evidence as D.W.1 and examined D.W.2 to prove the alleged family settlement (D.Ws.3 and 4 are Power of Attorney Holders and their evidence is not of any relevance so far as the issue regarding family settlement is concerned). Appellant No.1 proved Exts.B1 to B23. Courts below found that respondent got title and possession of the suit property subject to the life estate in favour of the mother of appellant No.1 and on the death of life estate holder on 14.12.1997 respondent is entitled to get eviction of the appellants from the suit property. Mesne profits was awarded at the rate of Rs.750/- per month. First appellate court has confirmed the finding against the appellants. Hence the Second Appeal urging by way of substantial question of law whether trial court was legally justified in granting a decree for mandatory injunction which was not asked for and whether courts below were right in holding against the family settlement pleaded by the appellants. Learned counsel for appellants contended that findings of courts below are not correct. Learned counsel appearing for respondent supported the findings entered by the courts below and contended that no substantial question of law is involved.

3. It is not disputed, and proved by Exts.A2 and A3 that even during the lifetime of the life estate holder, respondent had asserted his title over the suit property on the strength of Ext.A1 and obtained a decree for injunction against the life estate holder committing waste in the suit property. Therefore appellants cannot justifiably contend that respondent has no title over the property. Moreover, courts below found basing on Ext.A1 which is not under challenge that respondent has title over the property. It is also not disputed that the life estate holder died on 14.12.1997. The plea of family settlement though attempted to be proved through D.W.2 was not accepted by the courts belo