Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 78102
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Mrs. K. Govindarajan Thilakavadi, J
M. Kuppan – Appellant
Versus
Kanniappan – Respondent
S.A. No.1145 of 2019 | S.A. No.1149 of 2019
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ms. Ba. Nalini for Mr. K.V. Babu
For the Respondents: Mr. K.A. Mahendra Kumar
The settlement deed executed was valid as fraud and coercion were not established, affirming possessory rights under property law.
Headnote:(A) Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 123 - Validity of a settlement deed - The court found that the appellant's claims of fraud and misrepresentation regarding the settlement deed were not substantiated, confirming that the deed was accepted and acted upon in law. (Paras 13, 14)
(B) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 100 - Second appeals - The issues raised primarily revolved around the facts rather than substantial questions of law, resulting in dismissal of the appeals. (Para 14)
Facts of the case:
The second appeals originate from the common judgment and decree in two suits concerning claims on a property through a settlement deed executed by Saraswathi Ammal. Controversies arose regarding the deed's validity following allegations of coercion and misrepresentation.
Findings of Court:
The first appellate court dismissed claims of unenforceability concerning the settlement deed, citing absence of evident fraud, thereby validating the respondent's possession of the property.
Issues: The main issues addressed include the legal standing of the appellant to challenge the erstwhile decree and the validity of the settlement deed purportedly executed under fraudulent circumstances.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that unilateral cancellation by Saraswathi Ammal was impermissible in law, emphasizing the necessity for substantiating claims of fraud or misrepresentation to invalidate a deed.
Result: The Second Appeals are dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the origin of disputes regarding the settlement deeds. (Para 1 , 2 , 4) |
| 2. arguments contesting validity of the settlement deed and allegations of fraud. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 3. court's analysis of the evidence and legal validity of the settlement deed. (Para 12 , 13) |
| 4. conclusion reaffirming the first appellate court's findings. (Para 14 , 15) |
COMMON JUDGMENT
The above second appeals arises out of the common judgment and decree dated 29.03.2019 passed in A.S. No.66 of 2010 and A.S. No.67 of 2010 on the file of the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kancheepuram, Chengalpattu, reversing the common judgment and decree dated 03.08.2010 in O.S. No.104/2005 & O.S. No.174/2006 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu.
2. One Kanniappan (respondent herein) filed a suit in O.S.No.174/2006 for declaration of title and for permanent injunction against Saraswathi Ammal and Kuppan (appellant herein) and the said Saraswathi Ammal filed a suit in O.S. No.104/2005 against Kanniappan seeking for cancellation of the settlement deed dated 30.12.2004 in favour of the defendant therein and for permanent injunction restraining him from interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking in O.S. No.174/2006.
4. The case of the plaintiff (respondent herein) in O.S.174/2006 is as follows:
4.1. The plaintiff is the absolute and exclusive owner of the suit property. He got the same by way of a Registered settlement deed dt. 30.12.2004 executed by his mother Saraswathi Ammal. The Settlement is true, valid and acted upon. Patta No.219 for the suit property stands in the name of Saraswathi Ammal for the suit properties. The 2nd Defendant is alleged to have purchased the suit property from the 1st defendant and made an attempt to interfere with the Plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Hence the suit is for declaration of title and for permanent injunction.
4.2. The 1st defendant resisted the claim of the plaintiff by stating that there is no prayer against her, but she has been added as a party without any reason. She further stated that she was the absolute and exclusive owner of the suit properties. She purchased 0.67 cents of land out of 5 acres 40 cents in S.No.54/1 under two Registered sale deeds dated 5.3.1973 and 22.3.1973. After purchase, patta has been transferred in her name and S.No.54/1 has been Sub Divided into 54/1B. 0.22.0 hect., and S.No.54/1D. 0.33.0. hect., After purchase she dug up a well and also put up 3 H.P. Motor pump set in items 2 and 3 of the schedule and obtained Service connection in her name. It is further stated that she has been in possession and enjoyment of the said items from the date of purchase. She further stated that she is 70 years old and an illiterate women having less vision and is suffering from paralytic attack and staying with her daughter Sinthamany at Guduvancheri. During the 3rd week of December 2004, the plaintiff took her to his house in Chennai for giving treatment for her ailments. During her stay at Chennai the plaintiff fraudulently created a document styled as Settlement deed without her knowledge. She does not know the contents of the document, and the same was not explained to her. According to her it is a sham, nominal and fraudulent document. The plaintiff refused to sign the document. But the plaintiff affixed her Left Thumb Impression without her consent. The alleged settlement deed did not see the light of the day. It was not accepted and acted upon. On 27.1.2005 with great difficulty and with the help of her son-in-law she went to Sub Registrar Office, Thirukkalukkundram and cancelled the settlement deed alleged to have been obtained on 30.12.2004 in a fraudulent manner. After cancellation, she executed a registered power deed on 03.02.2005 in favour of her son-in-law, namely T. Jothi. The said Power agent has sold the
