PAVAYAMMAL Vs. PAPPATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs in O.S.No.1001 of 1992 on the file of the District Munsif Bhavani are the appellants herein. They are mother and daughter. The 1st and 2nd defendants in the said suit are daughter in law and son of the 1st plaintiff. The 3rd defendant was the husband of the 1st plaintiff. He died pending the suit. The plaintiffs and the 2nd defendant were recognized as his legal heirs. The 2nd appellant died pending the Second Appeal and the 3rd appellant and the 3rd respondent were brought on record as her legal heirs.

(2.) The suit had been filed seeking a declaration that the 1st plaintiff was the owner of the suit property without power of alienation, in view of a settlement deed dtd. 15/4/1991 executed by the 3rd defendant in her favour and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with peaceful possession.

(3.) In the plaint it had been stated that the property originally belonged to the 3rd defendant. The 1st plaintiff had filed O.S.No.162/1990 before the District Munsiff Court at Bhavani seeking maintenance for herself and for her daughter the 2nd plaintiff. It was stated that an oral division of the family properties of the 3rd defendant was done and in pursuant of such oral division, the 3rd defendant was allotted of the suit property. Since the suit for maintenance was filed, the 3rd defendant had executed a registered settlement deed dtd. 15/4/1991, by which the property mentioned therein has been settled to the 1st plaintiff in lieu of maintenance. Claiming that absolute right had accrued owing to the settlement deed, and seeking declaration of such right, the suit was filed. A written statement had been filed by the 2nd defendant, which had been adopted by the 1st defendant. It must be mentioned that even pending the suit, the 3rd defendant died. In the written statement filed by the 2nd defendant, the averments made in the plaint were denied. It was specifically stated that there was no family arrangement of partition as claimed by the plaintiffs. It was also stated that sridhana had been given to the 2nd plaintiff long before the family arrangement. It was also denied that the 3rd defendant was in possession of the suit property and that, he had executed the settlement deed dtd. 15/4/1991 with consent and with knowledge that it was a settlement deed. It was also stated that the claim of the plaintiffs cannot be contemplated and the suit is not maintainable and that the suit should be dismissed.