IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 28.02.2022

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH

S.A.No.536 of 2012

and

M.P.No. 1 of 2012

1. V.Dhanasingu

2. Velmurugan

3. Iyappan

4. Kolanchinathan

5. Karthikeyan

...Appellants/Appellants/Defendants

Vs.

1. Jayachandran alias Jayasankar

2. Gnanasambandam alias

Thiru Gnanasambandam

...Respondents/Respondents/Plaintiff 1 & 2

PRAYER: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C.,

against the Judgment and Decree dated 24.02.2012 in A.S.No.16

of 2011 on the file of the Sub Court, Panruti, confirming the

Judgment and Decree dated 29.08.2011 in O.S.No.113 of 2000 on

the file of the District Munsif Court, Panruti.

For Appellants

:

Mr.K.Srinivasan

For Respondents

:

Ms.R.Deepikaa Sonali

(Amicus curie)

JUDGMENT

The defendants are the appellants in the second appeal.

2. The first and second respondents are the plaintiffs,

who filed a suit seeking for the relief of declaration of

title over the suit property and for possession after removing

the super structure, if any, put up in the suit property and

for other consequential reliefs.

3. The case of the plaintiffs is that the suit property

along with other properties originally belonged to their

grandfather R.Muthukumarasamy Padayachi. The further case of

the plaintiffs is that he executed a registered Settlement

Deed on 25.04.1977 (Ex.A1) in favour of the plaintiffs by

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

appointing their father Venugopal Padayachi as their guardian.

According to the plaintiffs, the settlement deed was acted

upon and the said R.Muthukumarasamy Padayachi retained life

interest and vested reminder was given to the plaintiffs.

The further case of the plaintiffs is that after nearly 8

years after the death of the settlor, all of a sudden, the

defendants trespassed into the suit property and they started

putting up thatched house and thereby denied the right and

title of the plaintiffs over the suit property. Aggrieved by

the same, the suit came to be filed seeking for the reliefs

stated supra.

4. The case of the first defendant is that

R.Muthukumarasamy Padayachi had a large extent of property

measuring about 64 cents. He had four sons namely Ganesan,

Subramanian, Venugopal and Vaithyanathan. The plaintiffs

father's name is Venugopal Padayachi. The further case of the

defendants is that the said R.Muthukumarasamy Padayachi

divided 63 cents into four equal shares among himself and his

three sons viz., Ganesan, Subramanian and Venugopal by means

of an unregistered partition list. Thereafter, he is said to

have cancelled the partition list orally and had executed

three settlement deeds in favour of the plaintiffs, one Balu,

who is the son of Ganesan and the defendants on 07.08.1984

(Exs.B1 to B3). It is stated that these three settlement

deeds were duly accepted and acted upon. Thereafter, the

respective shares were utilised and huts were put up and the

entire 21 cents was fenced on all the four sides. It is

further stated that the defendants also started paying the

house tax for their respective houses and also paid the kist

to the concerned authority. The defendants have taken a

specific stand that the document dated 25.04.1977 (Ex.A1) was

not acted upon and in any case, the content of the document

makes it clear that it is only a Will and not a Settlement

deed as claimed by the plaintiffs. Therefore, the defendants

had sought for the dismissal of the suit.

5. The Trial Court framed the following issues and

additional issues:

1. 25/04/1977 njjpapl;l Kj;Jf;Fkhurhkp gilahr;rp vGjp itj;Js;s

brl;oy; bkd;l; gj;jpuk; cz;ikahdjh?

2/ 07/08/1984 njjpapl;l brl;oy; bkd;l; gj;jpuk; cz;ikahdjh?

3/ tHf;Fr; brhj;J thjpf;F ghj;jpakhdjh?

4/ thjpf;F tpsk;g[if ghpfhuk; fpilf;fj; jf;fjh?

5/ thjpf;F