MUNIAPPA NADAR Vs. K V DORAIPANDI NADAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The legal representatives of one Muniappa Nadar (1st appellant), who figured as the plaintiff in O.S. 226 of 1975, District Munsif's Court, Madurai Taluk, are appellants 2 to 6 in this second appeal. In that suit, Muniappa Nadar prayed for the relief of declaration of his exclusive title to the properties set out in the plaint therein and for an injunction restraining the respondents in this second appeal from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the suit properties.

(2.) The second respondent in this second appeal, Mayakaruppa Nadar, was the father of Muniappa Nadar (1st appellant), while the 1st respondent was related to him as aunt's son, being the son of one Thenammal, a sister of Mayakaruppa. According to the case of Muniappa, his father, Mayakaruppa and himself constituted members of a joint Hindu family, which owned the properties scheduled in O.S. 226 of 1975 as well as others. Mayakaruppa allowed Muniappa to be in possession and enjoyment of all the properties in O.S. 226 of 1975, as he became old and weak. While so, according to Muniappa, Mayakaruppa executed on 8-4-1973 a document styled as a settlement deed in his favour out of love and affection relinquishing his interest in the suit properties, as a result of which, Muniappa claimed that he became exclusively entitled to the suit properties as full owner. It was also the further case of Muniappa that the first respondent herein induced Mayakaruppa to execute a settlement deed on 5-2-1976 in his favour with reference to one item of family properties, which was characterised by Muniappa as a fraudulent document. With reference to this settlement deed, Muniappa issued a notice on 24-2-1975, to which the 2nd respondent sent a reply containing false allegations. The further case of Muniappa was that the 1st respondent was attempting to unlawfully interfere with his possession and enjoyment of the suit properties on the strength of the settlement deed executed by Mayakaruppa in favour of the 1st respondent. Claiming that he had raised raghi crops and that a police complaint preferred against the 1st respondent herein for attempted interference with the possession and enjoyment of the properties was of no avail, and stating that the first respondent was an influential Government servant and was attempting to trespass into the suit properties in denial of the title of Muniappa, the suit in O.S. 226 of 1975 was instituted by Muniappa praying for the reliefs set out earlier.

(3.) In the written statement filed by the respondents herein, they disputed the claim of Muniappa, that Mayakaruppa and Muniappa constituted members of an undivided Hindu family. According to them, in December 1973, there was an oral partition between Mayakaruppa and his son Muniappa, in which Muniappa was allotted a half share in the family properties, including the properties in O.S. 226 of 1975, and the other half was allotted to the share of Mayakaruppa. The relinquishment of the interest of Mayakaruppa on 8-4-1973, in favour of Munippa was denied. That document was characterised as a forged, fabricated and concocted one, having been brought into existence utilising certain blank papers containing the signature of Mayakaruppa obtained on the pretext of securing agricultural loan. That document was also stated to be void, inoperative and invalid. The further case of the respondents was that sometime in December, 1973, the relationship between Muniappa and Mayakaruppa was not cordial and this led to the partition and subsequently, Mayakaruppa was obliged to leave his son Muniappa and settle with the first respondent herein, who was none other than his sister's son and that till such time, Muniappa was looking after Mayakaruppa's properties as well and Mayakaruppa received the income therefrom. Stating that Muniappa did not have exclusive right to the suit properties, the respondents pleaded that Mayakaruppa was attached to his sister Thenammal and had been entertaining a desire to settle his properties in her favour; but as she died, on 5-2-1975, Mayakaruppa executed a settlement deed in favour of the 1st respondent herein with reference to the properties obtained by him in the partition in December, 1973, as well as the other properties. That settlement by Mayakaruppa in favour of the first respondent herein was claimed to be a voluntary and genuine transaction and that on account of this, Muniappa attempted to interfere with the properties settled on the first respondent by Mayakaruppa, which led to the lodging of a police complaint by the 1st respondent herein. The attempted interference with the possession and enjoyment of the properties by the first respondent was denied. The exclusive title put forth by Muniappa to the suit properties was also disputed. Claiming that the settlement deed executed by Mayakaruppa in favour of the 1st respondent herein could not be questioned by Muniappa, the respondents contended that Muniappa was not entitled to any of the reliefs prayed for in the suit.