A settlement deed is valid and conveys present interest unless properly revoked; mental soundness necessary for executing legal documents, burden of proof rests on the challengers.

JUDGMENT :

P.B. Balaji, J.

The First Appeals in A.S. No.591 of 2022 and A.S. No.31 of 2023, arise out of a judgment and decree in O.S. No.8156 of 2011 and A.S. No.200 of 2023, arise out of a judgment and decree in O.S. No.3873 of 2014 on the file of the II Additional City Civil Court, Chennai.

2. Pleadings in O.S. No.8156 of 2011

The respondent in A.S. No.591 of 2022 as plaintiff filed O.S. No.8156 of 2011 for possession and damages for use and occupation in the past and future.

2.1. Plaint in brief:

One Raju Mudaliar, was the owner of the large extent of land in Varasiddhi Vinayagar Koil Street, Saidapet, having purchased the same under sale deed dated 17.01.1956. In and by a settlement deed dated 29.07.1958, the subject property was settled in favour of his eldest daughter, by name of Kannammal. The said Kannammal disposed of a portion of the property to one Mr.D.Jayaram Pillai and retained the remaining land, together with Mangalore Tiled Roof, which is the suit property. The said Kannammal died intestate on 12.10.1990, leaving behind her husband, Kannappa Mudaliar and three sons viz., Sambanda Mudaliar, Shanmuga Mudaliar and Nagaraja Mudaliar, who sold the property to one Prabhavathi Palani under sale deed dated 22.01.1992. The said Prabhavathi Palani subsequently settled the property in favour of her mother Mrs.Karunambal, by settlement deed dated 23.08.2002, who in turn settled the property to her son Mr.M.Kandasamy, who is the first defendant, vide settlement deed dated 20.09.2002.

2.2. The first defendant entered into an agreement of sale with the third defendant on 22.08.2005 under a registered agreement bearing Doc. No.1400 of 2005 and on the same day, the first defendant also executed a power of attorney in favour of the third defendant by a registered instrument, empowering the third defendant to deal with the suit property in any manner he may desire. The third defendant, as power agent, sold 302 sq.ft of undivided share, together with superstructure thereon in the suit property, to the second defendant under sale deed dated 23.11.2005. Subsequently, the third defendant and the second defendant jointly sold the entire suit property measuring 906.5 sq.ft in favour of the plaintiff under registered sale deed dated 08.07.2011.

2.3. The first defendant continued to be in possession of the suit property though he promised to hand over possession on registration of the document. The first defendant evaded to vacate and deliver possession to the plaintiff. The plaintiff issued a lawyers notice on 16.07.2011, the first defendant did not chose to reply to the same. The plaintiff is a bonafide purchaser for consideration and the first defendant is bound to deliver possession of the suit property to the plaintiff and also liable to pay damages for use and occupation, the defendants 2 and 3 are only added as formal parties.

2.4. Written Statement of defendants 4 and 5 in brief:

The defendants 4 and 5 who were impleaded pursuant to order dated 04.08.2018, pending the suit in I.A. No.2598 of 2017, filed their written statement, the same is briefly set out hereunder:-

2.5. One Karunambal, who settled the property in favour of her son, the first defendant, is the mother-in-law of the 4^th defendant and paternal grandmother of the 5^th defendant. The settlement deeds executed by Karunambal on 20.09.2002 is not an absolute settlement deed. There is a Will dated 29.09.2003 executed by the said Karunambal and therefore, the first defendant has no right to deal with the property and after his life time, his wife, the 4^th defendant and daughter