LAWS(MAD)-2018-7-1661

R. NAGU Vs. R. KUPPAMMAL (DECEASED) AND OTHERS

Decided On July 30, 2018
R. Nagu Appellant
V/S
R. Kuppammal (Deceased) And Others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The suit has been filed by the plaintiff seeking the following reliefs;

(2.) The case of the plaintiff in brief is as follows: 2. 1. The suit property originally belongs to 1st defendant, mother of the plaintiff. The 1st defendant purchased the said property on 16.12.1977, by a registered sale deed. The plaintiff and defendants 2 to 5 are brother and sisters. The 1st defendant has settled the above property in favour of the plaintiff by a settlement deed dated 06.07.2006, which has been registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar of Royapuram, Chennai. Thereafter, the possession was also delivered to the plaintiff and she has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The plaintiff who became an absolute owner of the said property also transferred patta in her name and paying corporation tax etc., The 2nd defendant, being the brother of the plaintiff was permitted to reside in a portion of the suit property. 2. 2. The 1st defendant at the instigation of other defendants, revoked the said settlement deed executed in favour of the plaintiff on 31.03.2010 unilaterally. The settlement deed has been cancelled on the ground that the Settlee is acting as per settlement deed. Since, there is no pre-condition stated in the settlement deed, the 1st defendant has no right to cancel the settlement deed. Hence, the cancellation deed is to be declared as a Sham and nominal document and the cancellation is valid. 2. 3. The plaintiff further submits that after cancellation of settlement deed, the 1st defendant has executed the settlement deed on 31.03.2010 in favour of the defendants 2 to 5 and also in the name of plaintiff which was also registered. When the cancellation of settlement deed is void of ab initio and the subsequent settlement deed is also non-est in law. Based on the settlement deed the defendants 2 to 5 are taking steps to encumber the suit property, hence, she sought for injunction restraining the defendants from dealing with the said property in any manner. The plaintiff came to know about the cancellation of settlement deed only recently and immediately she filed the present suit. The Written statement filed by the Defendants:-

(3.) The defendants have filed a written statement denying the allegations contained in the plaint. According to the defendants, the suit property was owned and possessed by the first defendant and she developed it with the help of her husband Rajabather. The suit property was never in possession of the plaintiff but in possession of the first defendant and her son R.Egappan, the second defendant herein. The first defendant and her husband have contributed for the marriage of the plaintiff and incurred the expenses thereof. At the insistence of the plaintiff, first defendant had earlier executed a settlement deed on 06.07.2006 reluctantly. While so, in the month of March 2008, the first defendant fell ill and only at that time, the first defendant revealed the defendants about the execution of the settlement deed in favour of the plaintiff due to coercion and force. The settlement deed was thereafter cancelled by means of a Deed of Cancellation dated 31.03.2010 and a fresh settlement deed was executed in favour of the plaintiff and defendants 2 to 5. The deed of cancellation was executed by the first defendant voluntarily to ensure that all her children get equal share in the suit property. The defendants therefore prayed for dismissal of the suit.