IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 20.04.2022

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH

SECOND APPEAL NO.359 OF 2014

AND

MP.NOS.1, 2 OF 2014

1. Rukkmani

2. Munisamy Chetty

... Appellants/

Appellants/Defendants

.Vs.

1. Gajendran

2. Rajavelu (Deceased)

3. Lakshmi

4. Santhi

5. Minor Balaji

... Respondents/

Respondents/Plaintiffs

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

Civil Procedure against the Judgment and Decree dated 20.12.2013

made in A.S.No.43 of 2010 on the file of the Subordinate Judge,

Gudiyatham, Vellore District in confirming the Judgment and

Decree dated 26.10.2010 made in O.S.No.423 of 2004, on the file

of the District Munsif Court, Gudiyatham.

For Appellants

: Mr.G.Vinodh Kumar

For Respondents

:

Mr.K.A.Ravindran

for R1 & R 4

JUDGMENT

The defendants are appellants in this Second Appeal.

2.The respondents/plaintiffs filed a suit seeking for the

relief of partition and for allotment of ½ share in the suit

property.

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

3.The case of the plaintiffs is that they are brothers and

sons of one Anjaneyulu Chetty. The 2^nd defendant is the brother

of the said Anjaneyulu Chetty and the 1^st defendant is the wife

of the 2^nd defendant. The further case of the plaintiffs is that

the suit property originally belonged to Murugappa Chetty and

Muniyammal, who were the grand father and the grand mother of

the plaintiffs.

They executed a registered Will dated

27.4.1981, marked as Ex.B-1 in favour of the 1^st defendant and

bequeathed the entire suit property in her favour.

4.It is stated that the grandmother Muniyammal with a sound

and disposing state of mind executed a registered settlement

deed dated 29.11.1993 in favour of the plaintiffs, marked as

Ex.A-1 and she settled ½ share in the suit property in favour of

the plaintiffs. The 1^st defendant had instituted proceedings

against the plaintiffs and their father by questioning the

settlement deed on the ground that the said Muniyammal had

executed the document when she was in an unsound state of mind.

This suit was not prosecuted by the 1^st defendant and it was

dismissed as not pressed.

5.The grievance of the plaintiffs was that the 1^st defendant

was evading to partition the property by metes and bounds and

left with no other alternative, the suit came to be filed

seeking for ½ share in the suit properties.

6.The 1^st defendant filed a written statement and took a

stand that the settlement deed dated 29.11.1993 is unsustainable

in law since Muniyammal was in an unsound state of mind and she

was actually taking treatment in a mental hospital at Vellore

during the relevant point of time. The 1^st defendant took a

further stand that she is the absolute owner of the suit

property by virtue of Ex.B-1 Will and the 1^st defendant denied

the very claim made by the plaintiffs seeking for ½ share in the

suit properties. Accordingly, the 1^st defendant sought for the

dismissal of the suit.

7.Both the Courts below on considering the facts and

circumstances of the case and on appreciation of the oral and

documentary evidence, concurrently held in favour of the

plaintiffs and decreed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the

defendants have filed this Second Appeal.

8. Heard Mr.G.Vinodh Kumar, learned counsel for the

appellants and Mr.K.A.Ravindran, learned counsel for the

respondents 1 to 4. This Court also carefully perused the

materials available on record and the findings of both the

Courts below.

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

9.The main issue that requires the consideration by this

Court is as to whether the settlement deed dated 29.11.1993

executed by Muniyammal in favour of the plaintiffs was

executed when she was suffering from unsound mind as claimed by

the 1^st defendant. While dealing with this i