VENKATA SUBRAMANIAM Vs. M DHANAPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs are the appellants herein. The plaintiffs have filed a suit for declaration that they are entitled to the first item of the suit property and for possession of the same, after the life time of Poongavanam Ammal, the 5th defendant.

(2.) It is the case of the plaintiffs that the suit property, originally, belonged to Agilandammal, the paternal grand mother of the plaintiffs. In and by the settlement deed, dated 19.1.1955, Agilandammal settled the suit properties in favour of Poongavannammal, the 5th defendant, giving life estate to her and the vested remainder to her sons. The said settlement deed was duly executed, attested and registered and it was also accepted by the settlee, Poongavannammal. Subsequently, Agilandammal and Poongavanammal, the 5th defendant jointly sold the suit first item to the defendants 3 and 4 under a sale deed dated 28.12.1963. In the said sale deed, there is a reference about the settlement deed dated 19.1.1955. Subsequently, the third defendant sold the first item to the second defendant under a sale deed dated 30.5.1967 and the second defendant sold the first item to the first defendant under a sale deed dated 2.7.1984. It is stated that as per the settlement deed dated 19.1.1955, Poongavanammal has got only a life interest and the vested remainder was given to her sons, who are the plaintiffs herein. According to the plaintiffs, the first defendant did not derive title under the sale deed dated 2.7.84, and he is only entitled to enjoy the property as long as the settlee Poongavanammal was alive.

(3.) The first defendant in his written statement has stated that Agilandammal was not the owner of the suit property, and she has no right to execute the settlement deed in favour of Poongavannamal, the fifth defendant. It is further stated that since the suit property is a joint family property, Agilandammal had no independent right to execute settlement deed in favour of the fifth defendant. It is further stated that even if Agilandammal is a heir to her husband's estate, the settlement deed was executed prior to coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, and therefore, she had no right to execute the settlement deed in favour of the fifth defendant. It is further stated that the fifth defendant was minor at the time of execution of the settlement deed. The settlement deed in favour of the minor without guardian was not valid and it was a void transaction. It is further stated that Poongavannamal is the second wife of Thangavelu, and the settlement deed was executed for the purpose of marrying Poongavannamal to Thangavelu and the same is void and opposed to public policy. It is further stated that the first defendant purchased the property in the year 1984. In pursuance of the same, he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. The suit has been filed only in the year 1996 only with a view to blackmail him.