IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Date: 02.04.2007

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANI

Second Appeal No.733 of 1995

1.

Arukkani (died)

2.

Jayalakshmi

... Appellants/Appellants/Defendants

3.

Marappan

4.

Thangammal

Appellants 3 and 4 are brought on record as the

LRs of

the deceased 1^st appellant vide

order dated 11.06.1996

in C.M.P.No.694 of 1996

... Appellants

Vs.

Subramaniam

... Respondent/ Respondent/ Plaintiff

PRAYER: Second Appeal against the Judgment and decree of the

Subordinate Judge, Namakkal dated 28.01.1993 and made in A.S.No.51

of 1992 confirming the judgement and decree of the Court of the

Additional District Munsif of Namakkal dated 08.10.1991 and made in

O.S.No.1062 of 1986.

For Appellants

: Mr.N.Manoharan for

Mr.K.Kumaravel

For Respondent

: Mr.R.Saseetharan for

Mr.R.Janakiraman

J U D G M E N T

The unsuccessful defendants before the Courts below are the

appellants. The plaintiff filed the suit for declaration and

injunction in respect of the house property. Pending second appeal,

the first appellant died and her legal representatives were brought

on record as appellants 3 and 4. The plaintiff is the brother of

defendants 1 and 2. It is stated that the first defendant is blind

and the second defendant is a widow.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2. The case of the plaintiff is that his father

Palanipandidhar was the owner of the suit property and by a

registered settlement deed dated 31.08.1970, which is marked as

Ex.A.1, he settled the property in favour of the plaintiff and ever

since the date of the settlement, he has been in possession and

enjoyment of the suit property by paying house tax, etc. It is

also the case of the plaintiff that the settlement deed executed

by his father under Ex.A.1 is irrevocable since he had no such

right. It is also his case that ten years after the settlement deed

was executed, the defendants have fraudulently taken away the

original settlement deed from the plaintiff’s possession and had

obtained a cancellation deed dated 07.06.1980 cancelling the said

settlement deed, which stands marked on the side of the defendants

as Ex.B.1, and also obtained a settlement deed in their favour on

07.07.1980, which stands marked as Ex.B.2. According to the

plaintiff, though the defendants had accepted the settlement made

in his favour by his father on 31.08.1970, yet, they are

attempting to interfere with his possession and therefore, he filed

the said suit.

3. The defendants, while admitting in the written statement

about the settlement deed dated 31.08.1970 marked as Ex.A.1 written

by Palanipandithar in favour of the plaintiff, would however deny

the statement that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit

property. It is the case of the defendants that after the said

settlement deed, Palanipandithar himself was enjoying the property

and since the plaintiff did not maintain his father, by document

dated 07.06.1980, their father had cancelled the settlement deed

and a new settlement deed was executed in their favour on

07.07.1980, based on which, possession was given to the defendants

and it is the defendants, who have been maintaining their father as

well as their aged mother. The defendants have also filed

additional written statement stating that the plaintiff had obtained

settlement deed from his father on 31.08.1970 by giving a false

promise to him that the plaintiff would maintain him during his

lifetime by providing food, shelter, etc. It is also their case in

the additional written statement that their father, thinking that he

is signing a "will", had signed the settlement deed but kept the

same with him since the plaintiff had failed to maintain him. The

father of the plaintiff, after seeing the document which was in his

possession and having found that it was obtained as se