An unregistered settlement deed is not valid to convey title to property.

S.A.No.216 of 2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 14.12.2023

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR

S.A.No.216 of 2017

and

CMP.No.5073 of 2017

L.Chandran (Deceased)

1.C.Devaraj

2.Leelavathai

3.Latha

...Appellants

Vs.

Moorthy (Deceased)

1.L.Anandan

2.Nethravathi

3.K.Deepu

4.K.Priyanka

5.Geetharani

6.M.Magesh

7.Prabavathi

... Respondents

Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil

Procedure, against the judgment and decree of the District Judge and the

Appellate Authority of the Nilgiris at Udhagamandalam in A.S.No.7 of 2015

1/8

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

S.A.No.216 of 2017

dated 19.10.2016 confirming the judgment and decree in OS.No.139 of 2010

dated 03.09.2015 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge,

Udhagamandalam.

For Appellants : Mr.G.Ethirajalu

For Respondents

: Mr.S.Rajmakesh for R1 to R4

R5 to R7 - Left

JUDGMENT

The unsuccessful defendants in the suit are the appellants. The

respondents filed a suit for partition of their 3/4^th share in the suit property. The

suit was decreed by the trial Court and the same was confirmed by the First

Appellate Court. Aggrieved by the concurred findings, the unsuccessful

defendants have come up with this Second Appeal.

2. According to the respondents/plaintiffs, the suit property

originally belonged to Mariammal mother of the first respondent. She died

intestate leaving behind her sons/plaintiffs 1 & 2, first defendant and one

L.Kumar to succeed her estate. The said L.Kumar pre-deceased his mother and

the legal representatives of L.Kumar were arrayed as plaintiffs 3 to 5 in the

2/8

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

S.A.No.216 of 2017

suit. Therefore, it was the claim of the respondents/plaintiffs that they were

entitled to 3/4^th share in the suit property and the appellants/first defendant and

his heirs were entitled to 1/4^th share in the suit property. It was further averred

that in spite of the demand for partition the defendants were not amenable for

the same. Therefore, the respondents were constrained to file a suit for

partition claiming 3/4^th share in the suit property.

3. The appellants/defendants filed a written statement denying the

averment in the plaint as if Mariammal died intestate. It was claimed that the

first defendant was a mentally disordered person and taking note of the said

fact, a settlement deed was executed in favour of the first defendant on

14.05.2008 out of love and affection. Therefore, the appellants/defendants

claimed absolute right over the suit property under the settlement deed

executed by Mariammal in favour of the first defendant.

4. The trial Court on appreciation of oral and documentary

evidence available on record came to the conclusion that Ex.B11 settlement

deed relied on by the appellants/defendants could not convey any title to the

first defendant as it was an unregistered settlement deed. Further the appellants

3/8

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

S.A.No.216 of 2017

failed to examine the attestor to the settlement deed to prove the same.

Therefore, the trial Court rejected the defence and granted a decree for

partition of 3/4^th share as prayed for. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants

preferred an Appeal in A.S.No.7 of 2015 on the file of the District Judge,

Nilgiris at Udhagamandalam. The first Appellate Court also affirmed the

findings of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. Hence, the unsuccessful

defendants have come up with this Second Appeal.

5. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that Ex.B11

settlement deed executed by Mariammal was an unregistered document and

the same was acted upon and therefore, the respondents are not entitled to

maintain a suit for partition. The learned counsel for the appellants further

submitted that the Courts below failed to offe