MUTHY VELU Vs. G KANNAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Having aggrieved over the Judgment and Decree passed in favour of the plaintiffs/respondents, holding that the plaintiffs would be entitled to 5/8th share, the defendants/appellants have filed the present appeal.

(2.) According to the plaintiffs, A-schedule property was purchased by Chandrasekaran in the year 1935 and since the date of purchase, he was in absolute possession and enjoyment. In the year 1946, the said Chandrasekaran executed an irrevocable settlement deed in favour of his wife Pattammal, the mother of the defendants in respect of A-schedule property. The said Pattammal died in the year 1952 leaving the appellants and her husband as legal heirs. After the death of Pattammal, the said Chandrasekaran got married to the first plaintiff, Kannammal. Through Kannammal, the other plaintiffs 2 to 5 were born. In the year 1975, the settlement deed which was executed in the year 1946 was revoked through a revocation deed executed by the said Chandrasekaran. In 1976, the said Chandrasekaran died. Therefore, the plaintiffs filed the suit claiming right over 5/8th share in the suit property.

(3.) According to the defendants, the settlement deed executed by Chandrasekaran in favour of Pattammal cannot be revoked, as the said deed is an irrevocable document. After the death of Pattammal, Chandrasekaran and three defendants, namely, the children of Pattammal, are each entitled to 1/4th share. Therefore, the plaintiffs, if at all, are entitled to any share, each plaintiff would be entitled to have l/28th share in the properties left by the deceased Chandrasekaran. As per law, the plaintiffs 2 to 5 are entitled to have 4/ 28th share in A-schedule property. Therefore, the plaintiffs' suit demanding 5/8th share in the A-schedule property is not maintainable.