S.A.No.809 of 2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 07.11.2023

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA

S.A.No.809 of 2023

Chengalvarayan (died)

1. Revathi

2. Varalakshmi

3. Saravanan

4. Senthilkumar

… Appellants / Defendants

Vs

Lakshmi

. . . Respondent / Plaintiff

Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of C.P.C against the

Decree and Judgment dated 21.02.2020 made in A.S.No.56 of 2012 on

the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Tindivanam, confirming

the order dated 21.07.2012 in O.S.No.413 of 2008 on the file of the

Additional District Munsif, Tindivanam.

1/13

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

S.A.No.809 of 2023

For Appellants

: Mr.P. Kannan Kumar

For Respondent : Mr.S.Kaithamalai Kumaran

Caveator counsel

JUDGMENT

The defendants who have concurrently suffered a decree for

declaration and permanent injunction have filed this second appeal.

2. The facts are briefly set out herein below.

The first defendant had passed away pending the first appeal and

his legal representatives have been brought on record as appellants 2 to

5 in the appeal suit. The respondent herein had filed the suit

O.S.No.413 of 2008 on the file of the Additional District Munsif,

Tindivanam against the deceased first defendant for a declaration and

injunction. It was her case that the suit property belonged to her

2/13

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

S.A.No.809 of 2023

mother, Meenatchi Ammal, and the deceased first defendant was her

maternal uncle. Her mother was given in marriage to one Kuppusamy.

The respondent's father had asked the deceased first defendant to

purchase the property at Ozhundiapet Village for which he had

entrusted him with a considerable amount of money which he had got

from the sale of his property. The deceased first defendant had sold his

property to the plaintiff's mother, Meenatchi Ammal. However, a

settlement deed dated 08.03.1976 was executed, taking into account the

fact that the registration charges for sale was high. From the date of the

settlement deed, Meenatchi Ammal was in possession and enjoyment

of the property.

3. On 05.06.2007, Meenatchi Ammal had sold the property to the

respondent herein for a valuable consideration. The respondent has got

the revenue records mutated in her name. After the said sale, she is

enjoying the same. It appears that the first defendant, taking advantage

3/13

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

S.A.No.809 of 2023

of his name in the revenue records, had created a sham and nominal of

the document in favour of the first appellant herein. Therefore, the

respondent had come forward with the suit in question.

4.The first defendant had filed a written statement inter-alia

contending that he had actually obtained a loan from his sister

Meenatchi Ammal towards this loan Meenatchi Ammal's husband

Kuppusamy had insisted upon a settlement deed being executed to

secure the loan. The first defendant has never delivered possession of

the property to the said Meenatchi Ammal and she continued to be in

possession of the property and has been cultivating it. It is also the

contention of the first defendant that the original settlement deed

remained in the hands of the deceased first defendant. The first

defendant thereafter discharged the loan and revoked the settlement

deed under a Deed of Revocation dated 22.07.2005. Therefore, it is

crystal clear that the settlement executed by the deceased first

4/13

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

S.A.No.809 of 2023

defendant in favour of the respondent's mother was never intended to

be acted upon and Meenatchi Ammal had not accepted the same.

5. It was also the defense of the first defendant that, apart from

him, he has two sons and a daughter, who are entitled to the share in

the suit property. Therefore, the execution of the settlement deed is

void abinitio. It