SULOCHANA(DIED) Vs. RAMAMIRTHATHAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal filed by the plaintiff, who lost her suit for declaration of title in respect of the suit properties mentioned in Schedule A and B of the plaint and for mandatory injunction directing defendants 1 to 3 to surrender vacant possession of the A schedule property after removing the superstructure and also to declare the sale deeds dated 07.07.1997 and 08.01.1998 as null and void.

(2.) The brief facts of the case as found in the plaint is that as part of suit schedule property was originally owned by one Nagammal, which she donated to her daughter Kamatchi Ammal under a deed of donation dated 01.04.1931 and the remaining portion of the suit property was purchased by Kamatchi Ammal under deed dated 07.02.1936. The said Kamatchi Ammal had no issues. On 16.11.1970 she executed an Inam Settlement in favour Ramamirthathammal, who is the wife of Kamatchi Ammal's cousin Gnanasundaram Pillai. This deed of Inam Settlement was later cancelled by Kamatchi Ammal by deed dated 22.12.1971 captioned as Inam Settlement Cancellation Deed and also by another deed dated 16.01.1972 capationed as Will Cancellation Deed . Thereafter, Kamatchi Ammal sold the suit property to the plaintiff on 10.04.1972. After purchase of the suit property from Kamatchi Ammal, the patta of the property was transferred in the name of the plaintiff and she is in possession and enjoyment of the same. Due to close relationship, the plaintiff allowed her vendor Kamatchi Ammal, continue to reside in the house mentioned in the schedule. This fact is reiterated by Kamatchi Ammal in her Will dated 14.04.1978 while disposing her movables and instruction regarding her last rites. Defendants 1 to 3 misusing the permissive occupation had changed the patta in their names. Also they have sold a portion of the vacant land to an extent of 2 acres 41 cani or 18-1/64 kuzhies to the fourth defendant vide registered sale deed dated 07.07.1997. The fourth defendant has sold the said portion of the property to the fifth defendant and sixth defendant vide, sale deed dated 08.01.1998. Those sale deeds are void documents, since defendants 1 to 3 had no right or title over the suit property. The plaintiff not being a party to the document, those two sale deeds are not binding on her. Hence, she prays for declaration of title and to declare those two documents dated 07.07.1997 and 08.01.1998 as null and void.

(3.) Defendants 1 to 3, in their written statement contended that, the Inam Settlement Deed of Kamatchi Ammal dated 16.11.1970 is a valid registered document and irrevocable. Kamatchi Ammal settled the property to Ramamirthathammal, wife of Gnanasundaram Pillai the cousin brother of Kamatchi Ammal. Due to love and affection, she gifted the property to Ramamirthathammal on condition to enjoy the property till her life, without right of disposing it and after her life, vesting absolutely with the defendants 2 and 3. In the deed, it has been specifically stated that Kamatchi Ammal was living along with Ramamirthathammal in the said property and the settlement was in praesenti. Therefore, the subsequent cancellation deeds dated 22.12.1971 and 16.01.1972 are void documents. The subsequent sale deed alleged to have been executed by Kamatchi Ammal in favour of the plaintiff dated 10.04.1972 is non est in law. These documents are not genuine documents. It is created by the plaintiff fraudulently to defeat the right of the defendants. Few other averments in the plaint as well as in the written statement are not relevant and necessary to decide the appeal. Hence, they are not extracted.