MR. A. JOHNSON Vs. MR. G. ARCHIBALD DEVASAHAYAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant, who is the son of the respondent/plaintiff and lost before the Courts below, is the appellant in this Second Appeal.

(2.) The appellant/plaintiff filed the suit in O.S. No. 34/2009 on the file of the Court of District Munsif, Tambaram, against the respondent herein praying for judgment and decree to declare that the revocation of the Settlement Deed, dated 10.01.1996 (Ex.A2) as void and illegal. It is the case of the appellant/plaintiff that the respondent who is his father, is the owner of the suit property, residing at Door No.23/1, Mahalakshmi street, East Tambaram Chennai-59, comprised in S.No. 86/1-B-4 measuring about an extent of 1718 square feet with a superstructure in an area of 494 sq.ft. The parents of the plaintiff arranged the plaintiff's marriage with one Sweetline Anitha and it was solemnized on 22.11.2001 and till the date of filing of the suit, she is not conceived. The appellant/plaintiff would further aver that respondent - his father and his mother without knowing the true and correct facts started accusing his wife of infertility and insisted him to divorce his wife and it was not agreed by him. It is also stated by the appellant/plaintiff that the defendant had already settled the suit property in his favour on 24.03.1995 (Ex.A1) and subsequently, revoked the same on 10.01.1996 (Ex.A2) and again settled the property in his favour on 25.04.2005 (Ex.A3) and again revoked on 18.02.2006 (Ex.A4) and the Settlement Deed dated 24.03.1995 executed in his favour (Ex.A1) cannot be revoked and therefore, came forward to file this suit.

(3.) The respondent/defendant who is the father of the appellant/plaintiff, filed the written statement denying the averments made in the plaint and would contend that under registered Settlement Deed, dated 24.03.1995, executed in favour of his son, no absolute dispossession of right has been given and it was a conditional one for the reason that he had retained the life interest and the possession of the property was also not given to him and said Settlement Deed was never acted upon and all the revenue records are continue to stand in his name. It is further averred by the defendant, his daughter namely Percis Niranjana, married one Sathyaraj on 17.03.1995 against his wishes and even then, he and his wife visited the home of his daughter and however, objected by the appellant/plaintiff, as well as his wife. It is also contended by the defendant that he has got every right to execute the Settlement Deed and later on revoke the same and the suit is valued properly for the purpose of Court fee and prays for dismissal of the suit.