S.GOVINDARAJ Vs. PRAMILA NAGARAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant in O.S.No. 3207 of 2022 on the file of the XVII Additional City Civil Court at Chennai is the appellant herein, having filed the Appeal questioning the Judgment and Decree dtd. 31/10/2023.

(2.) O.S.No. 3207 of 2022 had been filed by the respondents seeking partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties and to allocate 3/4th share to them and to declare a settlement deed dtd. 8/4/2011 registered in the Sub Registrar Office at Velacherry as not binding on them and for permanent injunction and other reliefs.

(3.) The suit had been filed by three plaintiffs Pramila Narayajan, G.Sharmila and R.Bakyalakshmi / sisters against their brother, S.Govindaraj / the appellant herein. In the plaint, they contended that their grandfather M.C.Vijayaranga Nayakar had purchased the suit schedule property by sale deed dtd. 23/9/1949. Subsequently, M.C.Vijayaranga Nayakar settled the property in favour of his children and the suit schedule property in favour of V.Shanmuga Sundaram, his son and father of the plaintiffs/defendants. Subsequently, the said settlement deed was cancelled by document dtd. 20/8/1986 and a fresh settlement deed was executed permitting Shanmuga Sundaram to enjoy the property during his life time and granting absolute rights to the plaintiffs/defendants. It was contended that Shanmuga Sundaram died on 8/9/2014 and thereafter, the plaintiffs / defendants were in joint possession of the property. Their mother also died on 20/9/2020. The plaintiffs had been demanding partition and separate possession of the property. The plaintiffs then came to know about a settlement deed said to have been executed by Shanmuga Sundaram in favour of the defendant. The plaintiffs claimed that their father did not have any right to deal with the property. It was under those circumstances that they instituted the suit seeking partition and separate possession of 3/4 share and to declare that the settlement deed executed by their father Shanmuga Sundaram in favour of the defendant is null and void.