A registered delivery account issued by a Civil Court creates a legal presumption of title and possession, preventing a non-owner from executing valid transfers or settlement deeds regarding that property.

JUDGMENT

This Second Appeal has been filed to set aside the judgment and decree made in A.S.No.08 of 2021 dated 06.10.2023 on the file of the Learned District Judge, Nagapattinam, confirming the judgment and decree made in O.S.No.25 of 2011 dated 28.10.2020 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Nagapattinam.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Additional Government Pleader for R2 and perused the documents and materials available on record.

3. The defendants 1, 4 and 5 are the appellants. The first respondent /

plaintiff filed a suit seeking declaration that the sale deed executed by the first defendant in favour of his wife / second defendant is null and void. The suit was decreed by the Trial Court. Aggrieved over the same, First Appeal was filed in A.S.No.08 of 2021 and the findings of the Trial Court were confirmed by the First Appellate Court. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings of the Courts below, the defendants 1, 4 and 5 are before this Court.

4. According to the first respondent / plaintiff, the suit property originally belonged to Sivamuthukrishnammal, mother of the plaintiff and the first defendant. After the death of the Sivamuthukrishnammal, there was a partition suit between the plaintiff and the first defendant and ½ share i.e., the suit property, was allotted to the plaintiff. Later, the plaintiff filed E.P.No.3 of 1998 and had taken possession of the suit property through Court on 22.10.1998. The first defendant, suppressing the above facts, falsely claimed that the suit property belonged to him and executed a settlement deed in favour of the second defendant on 20.11.2006. The plaintiff acquired the knowledge about the settlement deed executed by the first defendant, when it was produced by him before the Police Station on 30.05.2008. Within three years, the present suit has been filed seeking declaration that the settlement deed executed by the first defendant in favour of the second defendant is null and void in respect of the suit property.

5. The appellants / defendants 1, 4 & 5 filed a written statement and admitted the relationship between the parties that the plaintiff and the first defendant were the children of Sivamuthukrishammal. However, the defendants denied the allegation in the plaint regarding the partition suit filed by the plaintiff and allotment of suit property to the share of the plaintiff. The defendants also denied that the plaintiff had taken possession of the suit property through Court. It was further pleaded that the suit property was the exclusive property of the first defendant. Hence, he had executed a settlement deed in favour of the second defendant on 20.11.2006. In such circumstances, the plaintiff who is the third party to the suit property, could not maintain the suit without seeking declaration of her title. On these pleadings, the defendants sought for dismissal of the suit.

6. Before the Trial Court, on behalf of the plaintiff, the plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 and two other witnesses were examined as P.W.2 and P.W.3 and eight documents were marked as Exs.A1 to A8. On behalf of the defendants, the fifth defendant was examined as D.W.1 and five documents were marked as Exs.B1 to B5.

7. The Trial Court, on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, came to the conclusion that the plaintiff was entitled for declaration as prayed for and accordingly, decreed the suit. The first appeal preferred by the appellants was also dismissed confirming the findings of the Trial Court. Challenging the concurrent findings of the Courts below, the appellants are before this Court.

8. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the first respondent / plaintiff has not take