A settlement deed executed without authority by a deceased father, having only limited rights over property, is null and void, confirming equal shares for all heirs under the Hindu Succession Act.

JUDGMENT :

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.

The defendant in O.S.No. 3207 of 2022 on the file of the XVII Additional City Civil Court at Chennai is the appellant herein, having filed the Appeal questioning the Judgment and Decree dated 31.10.2023.

2. O.S.No. 3207 of 2022 had been filed by the respondents seeking partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties and to allocate 3/4th share to them and to declare a settlement deed dated 08.04.2011 registered in the Sub Registrar Office at Velacherry as not binding on them and for permanent injunction and other reliefs.

3. The suit had been filed by three plaintiffs Pramila Narayajan, G.Sharmila and R.Bakyalakshmi / sisters against their brother, S.Govindaraj / the appellant herein. In the plaint, they contended that their grandfather M.C.Vijayaranga Nayakar had purchased the suit schedule property by sale deed dated 23.09.1949. Subsequently, M.C.Vijayaranga Nayakar settled the property in favour of his children and the suit schedule property in favour of V.Shanmuga Sundaram, his son and father of the plaintiffs/defendants. Subsequently, the said settlement deed was cancelled by document dated 20.08.1986 and a fresh settlement deed was executed permitting Shanmuga Sundaram to enjoy the property during his life time and granting absolute rights to the plaintiffs/defendants. It was contended that Shanmuga Sundaram died on 08.09.2014 and thereafter, the plaintiffs / defendants were in joint possession of the property. Their mother also died on 20.09.2020. The plaintiffs had been demanding partition and separate possession of the property. The plaintiffs then came to know about a settlement deed said to have been executed by Shanmuga Sundaram in favour of the defendant. The plaintiffs claimed that their father did not have any right to deal with the property. It was under those circumstances that they instituted the suit seeking partition and separate possession of 3/4th share and to declare that the settlement deed executed by their father Shanmuga Sundaram in favour of the defendant is null and void.

4. The defendant in his written statement stated that the father Shanmuga Sundaram had executed the settlement deed with the concurrence of the plaintiffs. It was also pointed out that the plaintiffs had been married and gifted with gold jewels. It was stated that the defendant was looking after his parents and the plaintiffs did not spend any money in that regard. It was stated that the plaintiffs having enjoyed the benefits from the family, now cannot claim a share in the property. It was therefore stated that the suit should be dismissed.

5. On the basis of the above pleadings, the trial Court had framed the following issues:-

“1. Whether the suit claim is barred by limitation?

2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a declaration in respect of the settlement deed dated 08.04.2011 registered as Doc.No. 2058/2011 as null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs?;

3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a permanent injunction as prayed for?;

4. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a partition and separate possession as prayed for?; and

5. To what other relief?”

6. During trial, the second plaintiff was examined as PW-1 and Exs. A-1 to A-12 were marked. Ex.A-1 was the sale deed dated 23.09.1949 and Ex.A-2 was the settlement deed dated 28.02.1985. The settlement cancellation deed dated 20.08.1986 was marked as Ex.A-3. The further settlement deed dated 28.08.1996 was marked as Ex.A-4. The settlement deed executed by Shanmuga Sundaram in favour of the defendant dated 08.04.2011 was marked as Ex.A-5. The notice issued by the plaintiffs dated 16.02.2022 was marked as Ex.A-11. The defendant examined hims