J U D G M E N T

[

SANJAY KAROL, J.

1. The action that set in motion the instant dispute was in the year 1947, when a mother transferred property inherited at the death of her husband, in one form to her two sons and in another, to her daughter. Some forty-odd years later, the daughter’s husband filed a suit in respect of such property, in 1993. The Additional District Munsiff, [“Trial Court”] decided the matter in 1999. The Additional District and Session Judge, [“First Appellate Court”] returned a decision on the First Appeal in 2002. The Second Appeal was decided by the High Court, [Digitally signed by] in 2012. It is against this order and Signaturej Nuot Vderigfiedment in Second Appeal that the present civil appeal has been preferred.

Jayant Kumar Arora Date: 2024.02.16

19:21:18 IST Reason:

3 “Impugned judgment”

BACKGROUND FACTS

2. It would be necessary to advert to the facts underlying the present dispute. 3. On 10^th July 1947, one Thayammal executed a settlement deed, [“First Settlement Deed”] granting rights in her property to her two sons namely Raghavulu Naidu and Chinnakrishnan @ Munusamy Naidu, [“Munusamy”] for their lives and thereafter to the former’s two daughters namely Saroja and Rajalakshmi (present Respondent now represented through LRs). Saroja pre-deceased Thayammal as also her father and uncle, in 1951.

3.1 Subsequently, Raghavulu and Munusamy executed a Settlement Deed dated 31^st July 1952, [“Second Settlement Deed”] reverting the said interests in the properties back to their mother.

3.2 Thayamma, soon thereafter, executed a further Settlement Deed, [“Third Settlement Deed”] dated 18^th August 1952, bequeathing absolute interest in such properties only in favour of her two sons namely Raghavulu Naidu and Munusamy Naidu, with the consequence of extinguishing the rights, if any, of Saroja and Gopalakrishnan.

3.3 Munusamy had no children. His wife Pavunammal enjoyed life interest in the property bequeathed to her husband. They had an adopted daughter, Vasantha (present Appellant, now represented through LRs).

3.4 In 1993, during the lifetime of Pavunammal, Gopalakrishnan (Husband of Saroja) filed a suit, subject matter of the present lis, praying for a declaration as the owner of the properties since he was the sole heir of Saroja in terms of the First Settlement Deed.

4. It is in this brief background of facts that the dispute entered the courts.

It would be useful to have a summary of family relations forming the backdrop of, and parties to, the dispute by way of a chart, as immediately hereunder:-

• Pounamma is also referred to as Pavanuammal at some places, as was so done by the Courts below.

PROCEEDING BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT A. PLAINT

5. Plaintiff (Gopalakrishnan) filed a suit for declaration and to establish his vested rights and interest in the property.

5.1 It was urged that only the First Settlement Deed had legal sanctity. Accordingly, the wife of Munusamy is only entitled to possession and enjoyment till her lifetime. There is no right of transfer in her favour.

5.2 The Second Settlement Deed is only for the lifetime of Thayammal, and the same would not impact the vested right created in favour of deceased Saroja, inherited by Gopalakrishnan, as her husband and sole heir.

5.3 The adoption of Vasantha is illegal. Also, the vested right in favour of Saroja was created prior to such adoption and, therefore, would not affect the rights of Gopalakrishnan.

B. WRITTEN STATEMENT

6. The written statement is of denial of all claims made by Gopalakrishnan.

6.1 It is incorrect to state that the two sons Raghavulu and Munasamy, were in possession of suit properties according to the First Settlement Deed. No claim of any vested rights can be accepted.

6.2 The claim that Gopalakrishnan is the sole legal heir of Saroja, cannot be accepted as after her death in the year 1951, he has remarried and relocated to Pondicherry.

6.3 Even if the First Settlement Deed is accepted as genuine, then Pavanuammal alone would be the heir to such proper