O.S.A.No.247 of 2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 15.06.2023

CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S. SUNDAR

AND

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C. KUMARAPPAN

O.S.A.No.247 of 2017

and

C.M.P.No.11011 of 2019

Shahida Begum

... Appellant

Vs.

1.Ramiza

2.M.A.Ajmal Sheriff

3.M.A.Afsar Sheriff

4.Dr.Althaf Sheriff

5.Ameen Sheriff

... Respondents

Original Side Appeal filed under Order XXXVI Rule 1 of Original

Side Rules r/w. Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the judgment and

decree dated 16.03.2017 in C.S.No.228 of 2013 on the file of this Court.

For Appellant

:

Mr.S.Sudarshan

For R1 to R5

:

Mr.S.Parthasarathy

Senior Counsel

for M/s.A.Govindasamy

Page 1 of 31

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

O.S.A.No.247 of 2017

J U D G M E N T

(Judgment was delivered by S.S. SUNDAR, J.)

(1)Plaintiff in the suit in C.S.No.228 of 2013 on the file of this Court, is the

appellant in the above Original Side Appeal.

(2)The appellant as plaintiff filed the suit in C.S.No.228 of 2013 before this

Court for partition and separate possession of 7/72 share in all the suit

properties and for consequential reliefs. The suit is also to declare the

family settlement deed, dated 18.05.2005, bearing Document No.1854 of

2005 on the file of Sub-Registrar, Anna Nagar, Chennai, as null, void,

illegal and not binding on the plaintiff.

(3)The suit properties consist of two items. The first item is a vacant land

along with building to an extent of One Ground and 1270 sq.ft., situated

in Koyambedu Village, Saidapet Taluk, Chenglpet District. The second

item is also a plot in a sanctioned layout measuring an extent of 2

Grounds and 893 sq.ft. and an additional land measuring 1010 sq.ft. in

Koyambedu Village, Saidapet Taluk, Chengalpet District.

(4)It is the case of appellant/plaintiff in the plaint that the suit first item was

purchased by her father Late Sri M.A.Sheriff under a registered sale deed

Page 2 of 31

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

O.S.A.No.247 of 2017

dated 06.02.1974 and the second item was purchased by him under a

registered sale deed dated 18.08.1978. It is the appellant's further case

that her father Late Sri M.A.Sheriff died on 10.07.2010 intestate, leaving

behind plaintiff and defendants as his legal heirs. The 1^st defendant in the

suit is the appellant's mother and defendants 2 to 5 in the suit are

appellant's brothers.

(5)It is contended by the plaintiff that she is a co-owner of the suit properties

along with defendants 1 to 5 and that, as per the Mohammedan Law of

Succession, the plaintiff has 7/72 share in all the suit properties. It is the

case of appellant that defendants 2 to 5 were keeping her father with them

and that her father was dependent on the defendants 2 to 5 as he was not

keeping good health both physically and mentally because of his old age

and several other ailments. In the plaint, it is stated that defendants 2 to 5

had full control over her father Late Sri M.A.Sheriff and her mother 1^st

defendant, and by taking undue advantage of such a position, defendants

2 to 5 were interfering in all the decisions of Late Sri M.A.Sheriff and

unduly influencing his mind to their advantage. Stating that defendants 1

to 5 were in fiduciary relationship with Late Sri M.A.Sheriff, it is

Page 3 of 31

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

O.S.A.No.247 of 2017

contended by the appellant/plaintiff that defendants have influenced Late

Sri M.A.Sheriff and brought about a deed of family settlement dated

18.05.2005. It is contended that the deed of family settlement is not a

true and lawful document and it is void and not binding on the plaintiff

nor affects her legitimate share over the suit properties. If the document

as such is allowed to exist, it would be impossible for the plaintiff to enjoy

her share in the suit properties and therefore, it is stated by the appellant

that the settlement deed should be declared as null and void.

(6)The suit wa