Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 42262
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
JUSTICE, J
R.Rani – Appellant
Versus
The plaintiff – Respondent
O.S.No.437 of 2014
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.Balan Haridas
For the Respondents: Mr.K.Prem Kumar
A Gift Settlement Deed must be proved by examining at least one attesting witness if its execution is denied, as per Sections 122 and 123 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 96 - Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - Section 8 - Appeal against partition decree - The trial court declared the Settlement Deed dated February 18, 2005 as null and void, ruling that it was not proved in accordance with law and that the plaintiff is entitled to a 1/5 share in the Suit Properties. (Paras 8, 24, 34)
(B) Property Law - Gift Settlement Deed - A Gift Settlement Deed is a compulsorily attestable document under Sections 122 and 123 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and must be proved by examining at least one attesting witness if execution is denied. (Paras 19, 21)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff claimed a share in the Suit Properties of her late father-in-law, asserting that a Settlement Deed executed by her husband was forged. The trial court found the Settlement Deed to be fabricated and ruled in favor of the plaintiff. (Paras 3, 8)
Findings of Court:
The Settlement Deed was not proved validly, and the plaintiff was entitled to a 1/5 share in the properties. The trial court's decision was upheld with modifications regarding accounts. (Paras 33, 36)
Issues: The main issues included the validity of the Settlement Deed and the plaintiff's entitlement to a share in the Suit Properties. (Paras 6, 12)
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the necessity of attesting witnesses for a valid Gift Settlement Deed and ruled that the plaintiff's denial of execution was sufficient to disregard the Settlement Deed. (Paras 21, 33)
Result: The First Appeal is partly allowed; the Settlement Deed is declared non-binding on the plaintiff, and a Preliminary Decree for partition is passed. (Para 36)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appeal filed against trial court's decree. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. plaintiff's claim of inheritance and partition. (Para 3) |
| 3. defendants' assertion of settlement deed and ownership. (Para 4) |
| 4. trial court framed issues for determination. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 5. trial court's ruling on the validity of the settlement deed. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 6. defendants' arguments on the trial court's findings. (Para 10) |
| 7. plaintiff's counterarguments against the settlement deed. (Para 11) |
| 8. points for consideration in the appeal. (Para 12) |
| 9. court's analysis of the settlement deed's validity. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 10. legal requirements for proving the settlement deed. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 11. distinction between cases related to power of attorney and gift settlement deed. (Para 22) |
| 12. entitlement of shares in suit properties. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 13. limitation period for challenging the settlement deed. (Para 31 , 32) |
| 14. final observations on the trial court's decision. (Para 33 , 34 , 35) |
| 15. outcome of the appeal and decree. (Para 36) |
JUDGMENT
Feeling aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated September 26, 2019 passed in O.S.No.437 of 2014 by the 'learned XVI Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai' ['Trial Court' for brevity], the plaintiff therein has filed this Appeal Suit under Section 96 read with Orders XLI of 'the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ' ['CPC' for short].
2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred to as per their array in the Original Suit.
PLAINTIFF'S CASE
3. The case of the plaintiff as put forth in the plaint is that the Suit Properties belong to Late Ramalingam, who is the father-in-law of the plaintiff. He married one Parvathi as first wife and out of their wedlock, one male child was born on January 10, 1971, namely R.Venugopal, who is none other than the husband of the plaintiff. First wife - Parvathi passed away in the year 1974. Subsequently, Ramalingam married the first defendant - R.Rani as his second wife. Out of the second wed-lock, defendants 2 to 4 were born. Ramalingam passed away intestate in the year 1990 leaving behind plaintiff's husband - Venugopal and the defendants as his legal heirs. The marriage between the plaintiff and Venugopal was held on November 28, 2004 and they had no children in their marriage.
3.1. Further case of the plaintiff is that during his lifetime, Ramalingam purchased the Suit Properties out of his own funds. After the demise of Ramalingam, the plaintiff's husband - Venugopal also passed away issueless on May 11, 2012. After the demise of Venugopal, the plaintiff has got 1/5 share in the undivided Suit Properties. Subsequently, when the plaintiff demanded partition, the defendants refused to partition the Suit Properties. Hence, the plaintiff issued a legal notice to the defendants on February 19, 2013 and the defendants replied on February 26, 2013. In the reply notice, it was stated that the plaintiff's husband - Venugopal and the defendants 2 to 4 have already executed a registered Settlement Deed dated February 18, 2005 bearing Document No.154 of 2005 on the file of Sub Registrar's Office, Anna Nagar, in favour of the first defendant and thus, the entire Suit Properties belongs to the first defendant. On coming to know about this, the plaintiff verified with the Office of the Sub Registrar, Anna Nagar and came to know that no such Settlement Deed was executed and registered. Therefore, the plaintiff sent a rejoinder notice on March 20, 2013 calling upon the defendants to furnish the copy of the Settlement Deed. The defendants did not respond to the rejoinder notice. Hence, the plaintiff filed the Original Suit initially for partition.
3.2. Thereafter, during trial, the defendants produced the alleged Settlement Deed dated February 18, 2005 (Registered as Document No.575 of 2005 in the Sub-Registrar's Office, Anna Nagar, Chennai). Hence, the plaintiff amended the plaint and incorporated Paragraph Nos.13(a) to 13(e) and averred that the sign
