IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Judgment Reserved on : 07.09.2021

Judgment Pronounced on : 22.11.2021

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.KANNAMMAL

Second Appeal No.55 of 2019

Muthuraman @ Muthulinga Iyyer

... Appellant / Defendant

-Versus-

Dhanalakshmi @ Jayalakshmi

... Respondent/Plaintiff

This second appeal is filed under Section 100 of CPC

against the judgment and decree dated 03.08.2018 made in

A.S.No.90 of 2016 by the learned II Additional Subordinate

Judge, Villupuram, confirming the judgment and decree dated

07.04.2016 made in O.S.No.224 of 2011 by the learned Principal

District Munsif, Tirukoilur.

For Appellant

: Mr.V.Raghavachari

For Respondent

: Mr.R.Raja Rajan

JUDGMENT

This Second Appeal has been filed by the sole defendant,

who had suffered a declaratory decree in favour of the

respondent herein in O.S.No.224 of 2011 on the file of the

learned Principal District Munsif, Tirukoilur, declaring that

the settlement deed alleged to have been executed by the

defendant in favour of his son - Subash on 16.12.2009 in respect

of the suit 2^nd item of the properties and registered as

Doc.No.2044/2009 on the file of Sub Registrar, Anniyur, as sham

and nominal and ab initio void and restraining the defendant his

men or agents from alienating or encumbering the suit properties

to any third parties which came to be confirmed in Appeal Suit

in A.S.No.90 of 2016 by the Additional Subordinate Judge,

Villupuram, Villupuram District by Judgment and decree dated

03.08.2018.

2. The respondent is the plaintiff in the suit. The suit

was filed by the respondent for declaration declaring that the

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

settlement deed dated 16.12.2009 alleged to have been executed

by the 2^nd defendant in favour of his son and registered as

Doc.No.2044/2009 on the file of the Sub Registrar, Anniyur, in

respect of the 2^nd item of suit properties as sham and nominal

and ab initio void and for permanent injunction restraining the

defendant his men or agents from alienating or encumbering the

schedule mentioned properties to any third parties pleading that

the suit properties were originally belonged to one Gopalasamy

Iyyer, Son of Sambasiva Iyyer. The defendant is the father of

the plaintiff. The father of the defendant while he was alive

executed a settlement deed on 04.02.1949 bequeathing the suit

properties in favour of the defendant with limited life interest

and the remainder interest to the heirs, if any, born to the

defendant in the future. The defendant got married Tmt.Kantha @

Lakshmi and through their wedlock, they were blessed with a

female child, the plaintiff, on 05.07.1969. The plaintiff is the

only heir to the defendant born through the said wedlock and as

per the settlement deed, the plaintiff is entitled to receive

the suit properties as remainder. But the defendant did not

chose to respect the terms of the settlement deed and had

started trying to encumber the suit properties for his lavish

expenditure. The plaintiff also came to know through some of the

local people of the village that some third parties were trying

to purchase the suit properties from the defendant. Therefore,

the plaintiff had caused a legal notice on 06.04.2011 calling

upon the defendant to restrain himself from alienating the suit

properties and also making a demand for handing over of vacant

possession of the suit properties to the plaintiff. On receiving

notice, though the defendant admitted the settlement deed in his

reply, created a settlement deed on 05.08.2011 in favour of one

Subash. The said settlement deed is only a sham and nominal and

would not bind on the plaintiff and her right over the suit

properties. The suit properties are in possession of the

defendant. The defendant used to cultivate the suit l