GOKILAMBAL Vs. S PALANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE suit was filed by the plaintiffs/respondents herein seeking to grant a decree against the first defendant, declaring that the cancellation deed, dated 29.04.1998, executed by the first defendant and registered as document No.426/1998 in the Office of the Sub-Registrar at Triplicane, as invalid in law. The learned trial Court in O.S.No.2213 of 1999, dated 29.12.2003, had decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs. As against that, when an appeal was preferred by the defendants, the same was dismissed by the learned first appellate Court in A.S.No.535 of 2004, dated 12.04.2005, confirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court. As against the concurrent findings of the Courts below, the present second appeal has been filed by the defendants/appellants herein.

(2.) BRIEF facts leading to the filing of the second appeal are given as under:-

(3.) THE learned trail Judge, on appreciation of evidence produced by both sides, came to the conclusion that the first defendant while executing the settlement deed settling 'A' schedule property have specifically made a recital therein that the rental income coming from the 'A' schedule property will be enjoyed till her life time and after her life time, the first plaintiff will have limited life estate and after his life time, his children will have the absolute right over the suit property. Again, the second recital made therein also clearly shows that she will not revoke it and even if she does so, it will not be valid. When she has specifically made a recital in the settlement deed that she will not challenge or cancel the settlement deed and even if she does so, it will not be valid, the settlement deed cannot be cancelled behind the back of the plaintiffs. Further, on the basis of the settled legal position by this Court in Rajammal vs. Pappayee Ammal (2002 (4) CTC 376 Madras) holding that once the property has been gifted to donee, that too with recital that it is irrevocable, the donor has no right to revoke the same, the learned trial Court, by accepting the case of the plaintiffs that the gift once accepted cannot be revoked the same in any circumstances, decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs. Aggrieved by the same, when an appeal was preferred by the defendants, the learned first appellate Court also confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the learned trail Court. As against the same, the present second appeal has been filed by the defendants.