DHANALAKSHMI Vs. THANGAVELU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Second Appeal has been brought forth by the plaintiffs in a suit seeking to set aside the judgment of the learned VI Additional City Civil Judge, Madras, in A.S. No. 12 of 2002 wherein the judgment of the trial Court granting a decree in favour of the plaintiffs/appellants was set aside.

(2.) The appellants before this Court as plaintiffs filed the suit with the following allegations : In respect of the suit property, the defendant executed a settlement deed on 9-7-1986 in favour of the plaintiffs. The said property was purchased by him under three different sale deeds on 15-4-1982, 20-6-1984 and 14-6-1984 respectively. While the absolute right was given to the plaintiffs 2 to 4, the power over the properly was given to his wife, the first plaintiff herein, till her lifetime. The possession was also given to her that day. She was maintaining the family out of the income derived from the property by way of rent. She borrowed money and constructed the building. Plaintiffs 2 to 4 were put on education. The second plaintiff was employed. The fourth plaintiff was studying. The marriage of the third plaintiff was held on 15-9-1997. The first plaintiff started a business under the name and style of Om Sakthi Oils. Out of the income derived from the said business, the debts were discharged by her. As a husband, the defendant has failed in his responsibility. He left the family in lurch in the year 1990, and he issued a notice on 6-11-1997 stating that the settlement deed dated 9-7-1986, was cancelled by way of a cancellation deed dated 5-11-1997. A reply notice was sent by the plaintiffs on 12-11-1997. The suit property was not mortgaged. There is no contingency under the settlement deed. If the settlement is to be cancelled, then, the same can be done only through Court. The settlement made in favour of the plaintiffs 2 to 4 cannot be cancelled, since the cancellation deed will not bind them. Hence the suit.

(3.) The respondent/defendant contested the suit with the following allegations :- The settlement deed executed by the defendant, was a revocable one. They were self acquired properties. Thus, he has got a right to cancel the said deed. The first plaintiff was not treating him properly. She was harassing him by spending the rental amount for her brothers. She has not constructed the first floor. She was not spending money for her children. The first son was employed. She was receiving more than Rs. 5,000/- as rent. The daughter's marriage was conducted according to her will and pleasure. He has got a good name in the locality. But, the same was spoiled by her by lodging a complaint before the Police Station against him. She had mortgaged the suit property in order to help his brother who was residing and doing business at Soolurpet. She borrowed Rs. 40,000/- from one Mannar Chetty. He left the family for pilgrimage and returned from Amarnath. The first plaintiff stopped paying Rs. 200/- to his mother. He has got a right to cancel the settlement deed, since the same has been specifically mentioned in the document itself. Hence, the suit was to be dismissed.