Advocates:
R. AYYAM PERUMAL

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 1 of 7

CASE NO.:

Appeal (civil) 6994 of 1999

PETITIONER:

Kokilambal & Ors.

RESPONDENT:

N.Raman

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 21/04/2005

BENCH:

ASHOK BHAN & A.K. MATHUR

JUDGMENT:

J U D G M E N T

A.K. MATHUR, J.

This appeal is directed against an order passed by

learned Single Judge of the High Court of Madras in Second Appeal

No.1866 of 1986 on November 19,1998 whereby learned Single

Judge affirmed the judgment and order of the First Appellate Court

and dismissed the second appeal filed by the appellant herein.

Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are as follows. The

plaintiff- respondent instituted Original Suit No.8182 of 1980 before

the XVIth Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai praying for seven

reliefs. The main reliefs prayed for in the suit read as under :

" (i) Declaring that the plaintiff is entitled to

the properties in plaint A & B Schedule

absolutely after the life time of the lst defendant;

(ii) For a declaration that the deeds of revocation

dated 27.3.1979 registered as document

Nos.431 and 432 of 1979 in the office of the

Sub-Registrar, Madras in respect of properties

described in Schedule A and B hereunder are

void in law and not valid and binding on the

plaintiff;

(iii) For a declaration that the deeds of settlement

dated 30.3.1979 executed by the lst defendant

in favour of defendants 2 and 3 in respect of

plaint A and B schedule properties are void in

law and are not valid and binding on the plaintiff;

(iv) For a declaration that the deed of mortgage

dated 29.9.1979 executed by defendants 1 to 3

in favour of 4th defendant in respect of the plaint

A and B Schedule properties are not valid and

binding on the plaintiff;

(v) Directing the defendant to render true and

correct account of the rental income from the

properties described in the Schedule A and B

and to pay over the half share payable to the

plaintiff;"

According to the plaintiff in the suit, schedule properties A & B

belonged to one Late Manicka Mudaliyar, the husband of the first

defendant. That the said Manicka Mudaliyar died in or about 1963

leaving behind Kokilambal, the first defendant as his sole legal heir.

Since the deceased Manicka Mudaliyar had no issue, he showered

his love and affection to his elder sister’s son Varadan and had a

mind to adopt him but before he could do so, he expired. Keeping in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 2 of 7

view the wishes of her deceased husband, Kokilambal got all the last

rites performed through Varadan. Kokilambal, the wife of deceased

Manicka Mudaliyar made settlement on June 12, 1963 of A schedule

property in favour of Varadan while reserving her right and interest

therein. Similarly, she also made a settlement on June 27, 1964 in

respect of B schedule property and executed a deed of settlement in

favour of Varadan. By virtue of these two settlement deeds, settler

Kokilambal stipulated certain terms and conditions (reference shall

be made hereinafter). Varadan who was a bachelor executed a will

on May 22, 1978 in respect of his other properties other than those

properties which were received by him from Kokilambal by way of

settlement in favour of his brother( Plaintiff) . But Varadan died as a

bachelor on February 1, 1979. On March 27, 1979 the settlor,

Kokilambal revoked both the settlement deeds in favour of Varadan

and she executed a fresh settlement deed in favour of one Babu @

Pilani and Shantha @ Shanthi, the wife of Babu. Shanti was the

daughter of Kokilambal’s brother. Thereafter, Varadan’s brother,

N.Raman filed a suit to declare that he is entitled to the suit

properties after the death of Varadan and sought a declaration that

the revocation of settlement deed made by Kokilambal on March 27,

1979 be declared as null and void and likewise the fresh deed of

settlement executed by Kokilambal on March