ASHOKARAJAN Vs. DR.PADMARAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant in both the appeals is the first defendant in a suit for specific performance directing the first defendant to execute a partition deed as per partition agreement dated 25.11.2000 and to declare the settlement deed dated 29.04.2003 executed in favour of the first defendant by his father as null and void or in the alternative to partition the suit properties into two equal shares and allot one such share to the plaintiff. The first respondent herein is the plaintiff in the said suit.

(2.) The case of the plaintiff is as follows:

(3.) The first defendant filed a written statement and contested the suit. His case is as follows: The suit properties were not developed from the contribution of the plaintiff. The father had no ancestral properties. By his own exertion and also work, he started a rice and flour mill at Udumalpet and he was having good income. Out of such income, he had purchased the suit properties in his name. Therefore, they are self acquired properties of the father. Though the plaintiff was given medical education at great expenses by the father, the first defendant was not given any professional education. The improvements in the suit properties were effected after the father came to the first defendant's house. Therefore such improvements were made at the expenses of the first defendant also. The father was maintained by the first defendant till his death. The entire suit property was looked after by the first defendant as the power agent of his father. There was no good relationship between the father and the plaintiff. Though the father was not doing well, the plaintiff never cared to attend his father. The entire medical expenses were meted out of the salary of the first defendant. Out of love and affection and to help the first defendant, the father executed a registered Will on 02.03.1999. The said Will is the last and final Will. Yet the father wanted to give the properties to the first defendant even during his life time. Therefore, out of his free will and volition, he executed a registered settlement deed on 29.04.2003 in favour of the first defendant regarding the suit properties. The possession of the suit properties was also given to him on the date of settlement deed. The alleged partition agreement is not valid under law. Therefore, it is not admissible in evidence. The suit properties were never treated as common properties belonging to the three parties to the alleged agreement for partition. The said agreement is an unregistered one. The properties are self acquired properties of the father and therefore, his sons cannot claim any right at all over the same. By virtue of the settlement deed, the first defendant became absolute title holder of the suit properties and enjoyment of the same. Therefore, the claim of the plaintiff is not maintainable.