IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 20.06.2025 CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI A.S.No. 97 of 2023 and C.M.P.No. 5205 of 2023 S.Jayalakshmi ... Appellant Vs.

1. E.Tulasi @ Thulasiyammal

2. Krishnaveni

3. Uma Maheshwari

4. Saravanan

5. Kumaran .. Respondents PRAYER : Appeal Suit filed under Sec. 96 r/w Order 41 Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code, praying to set aside the judgment and decree dated 16.11.2022 passed by the IV Addl. Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in O.S. No.5887 of 2017.

For Appellant : Mr.R.Srinivas, Senior Advocate for Ms.V.Mythili For Respondents : Mrs.R.Poornima for R1 to R4 R5 – no appearance

JUDGMENT

The appellant herein is the plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.5887 of

2017, on the file of IV Addl. Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, challenging the findings of the trial court, had preferred this Appeal Suit.

2. Before the trial court, the plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants 1 to 5 seeking for the relief of declaration as well as permanent injunction in respect of suit property admeasuring an extent of 283 sq.ft. of land along with a house in R.S.No.619/2, New R.S.No. 61/8 in Block No.36, Vaikundapuram, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034 bearing Door Old No. 80/6, New No. 80/11 in Mahalingapuram Road, Vaikundapuram with four boundaries as described in the plaint schedule. The said suit was contested by defendants 1 to 3 and the defendants 4 and 5 remained exparte. On considering both sides, the trial judge framed the issues and finally held that the plaintiff is not entitled for any relief as she prayed for.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are denoted as per the ranking in the suit.

4. Brief facts of the case is as follows :-

The 1^st defendant herein is mother of plaintiff. The suit property as described in the plaint schedule originally belongs to 1^st defendant by way of purchase through a sale deed dated 10.07.1989 and eversince she was in possession and enjoyment of the same. The plaintiff, the defendants 2 and 3 are the daughters of 1^st defendant and defendants 4 and 5 are the grandchildren of 1^st defendant born through her another daughter Poongavanam. The case of plaintiff is that out of love and affection, on 13.03.1997, her mother/1^st defendant along with her husband executed a registered Settlement deed in her favour, immediately the said deed was acted upon and the revenue records were transferred in the name of plaintiff. From the date of said settlement, the plaintiff is in absolute possession and enjoyment of the suit property. In the year 2016, the other defendants claiming right over the property as well as demanding share, on verification, the plaintiff came to know that her mother unilaterally cancelled the said settlement deed on 15.09.2010 and on the same day, she executed another settlement deed in favour of plaintiff and the defendants 2 to 5 granting 1/4^th share in the suit property. The children of Poongavanam, defendants 4 and 5 were also given 1/4^th share. She came to know about the execution of settlement deed on 25.09.2017, immediately she come forward with the suit for declaration that the alleged cancellation of settlement deed would not bind her and also sought for permanent injunction not to cause any interference in the enjoyment of suit property.

5. The defendants 1 to 3 by filing written statements submitted their objections and stated that the 1^st defendant got married and she had five children, out of five children, one daughter died as unmarried and other daughters were got married and living with their children. The plaintiff was residing along with her after the demise of her husband. Her another daughter Poongavanam was married to one Senthamarai and begotten defendants 4 and 5 as their children. The plaintiff, who used to visit 1^st defendant's house developed illicit intimacy with 1^st defendant daughter's husband Senthamarai and got married during the subsistence of first marriage of his wife Poongavanam. While so, the said Poongavanam becam