A P THANGAVELU Vs. G M VENKATESAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is directed against the concurrent findings of the Courts below in the suit filed by the appellants for the relief of declaration of the settlement deed, dated 01.11.1993 and the family arrangement dated 14.06.1993 are not binding on consequential relief of injunction.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case is that :- One Palanichetty died intestate on 16.08.1973 and the plaintiffs are his son and daughters. In the partition between the said Palanichetty and his brother Ponnanchetty, 4.01 acre of land at Kalingiam Village was alloted to Palanichetty vide a registered deed dated 14.07.1959. This property was inherited by the plaintiffs on the demise of their father Palanichetty, which is now the subject matter of the suit. Earlier one Venkiammal, the first defendant in this suit under appeal filed O.S.315 of 1960 against Palanichetty claiming 2.50 acres out of 4.01 acres in this suit property. This suit was dismissed and further appeals ended in L.P.A.No.48 of 1970 on the file of the High Court, Madras. Though the first defendant Venkiammal at last succeeded in L.P.A.No.48 of 1970, the decree was passed after the demise of Palanichetty, hence according to the plaintiffs the said decree has become a nullity. Though in the plaint, it is stated that the first defendant has filed necessary application to set aside abatement the fate of it not been placed before the Courts. However, admittedly no further appeal against the judgment and decree passed in L.P.A.No.48 of 1970 is filed or pending.

(3.) The grievance of the plaintiffs is that the first defendant has settled 1.43 acres of the suit property in favour of his son Venkatesan who is the second defendant vide a settlement deed dated 01.11.1993 and also created a family arrangement deed dated 14.06.1993 covering the suit property, which is illegal and pre-judicial to the interest of the plaintiffs. Based on these documents the third defendant had advanced loan to the second defendant and the said transaction will not bind the plaintiffs. Hence the suit.