S SAKTIVEL Vs. M VENUGOPAL PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question that arises in this appeal is whether any parol evidence can be let in to substantiate a subsequent oral arrangement rescinding or modifying the terms of a registered settlement deed.

(2.) The property in dispute in this appeal was self-acquired property of one Muthuswamy Pillai. The said Muthuswamy Pillai had a concubine named Papammal and through her three sons and one daughter were born. One of the sons, Appavu Pillai died during the lifetime of Muthuswamy Pillai, leaving defendant Nos. 2 to 4 as his legal heirs. Singaravaelu Pillai (defendant No. 1) and Venugopal Pillai, plaintiff (respondent No. 1 herein) are second and third sons of said Muthuswamy Pillai. Defendant No. 6 who is the appellant in this case is the son of Singaravaelu Pillai (defendant No. 1) who died during the pendency of the suit. Muthuswamy Pillai who owned the property, settled the same under a registered settlement deed dated 26-3-1915 (Ext. A/1) in favour of Papammal and children born through her. At the time of execution and registration of settlement deed all the sons were minors and, therefore, their mother was appointed as their guardian who accepted the settlement in her capacity as a guardian of the minors. Muthuswamy Pillai died in 1954 and Papammal also died subsequently in the year 1957.

(3.) The plaintiff Venugopal Pillai claimed share in the property in dispute under the registered settlement deed. Since defendant No. 1 refused to give any share in the property to the plaintiff, he brought a suit for partition and also for other consequential reliefs. Defendant No. 1 filed written statement wherein he contested the claim of the plaintiff and whereas defendant Nos. 2 to 5 accepted the case of the plaintiff. After the death of defendant No. 1, defendant No. 6, who is the heir of defendant No. 1 was substituted in the suit as defendant No. 6. Defendant-appellant adopted the written statement filed by his father. In the written statement it was pleaded that as a result of the subsequent arrangement arrived at amongst the members of the family of Muthuswamy Pillai in the year 1941 the property in dispute was allotted to defendant No. 1 exclusively and rest of the other sons were given money by cash. In sum and substance the case of defendant No. 6 was that as a result of oral arrangement arrived in the year 1941, the settlement deed executed and registered on 26-3-1915 stood modified and, therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to any share in the property. The registered settlement deed was filed in the suit and was exhibited as Ex. A/1. Before the trial Court, a question arose as to whether the registered document is a settlement deed or a will. However, both the parties proceeded on the basis that document Ext. A/1 is a registered settlement deed and not a will. The trial Court treating the document Ex. A/1 as a settlement deed held that in view of proviso (4) to Section 92 of the Evidence Act the contesting defendant can lead oral evidence to substantiate the subsequent oral arrangements arrived at amongst the members of the family and believing the arrangements as set up by the defendant-appellant, the trial Court dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent.