KARPAGAM Vs. TULASIDOSS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the unanimous decisions of the Courts below, the defendant has preferred the above second appeal in a suit for partition.

(2.) The brief facts leading to the suit are that the plaintiff and the defendant are daughter and son of late Ramadoss Udayar respectively. The mother of the parties Lakshmi died on 06.05.2005. The case of the plaintiff is that there was a partition between her father Ramadoss and his brother Palani in the year 1971, as the properties were joint in nature. The suit properties admittedly stand in the name of the father Ramadoss. The plaintiff claimed that prior to her marriage as well as after her marriage, she had always contributed to the purchase of the suit properties by giving money to the father from her earning. She had also averred that the mother was also earning and contributing to the purchase of the suit properties. During the year 2007, the father Ramadoss became sick and was affected with kidney problems. The plaintiff was taking care of the father keeping him in her custody. But the defendant had forcibly taken him in a car to his house, without his consent and willingness. The defendant also had got a settlement deed executed on 07.03.2007 by obtaining the thumb impression of the father and got the same registered. When the plaintiff attempted to meet her father, she was refused permission and with great difficulty, she could meet her father, who had handed over a letter dated 21.03.2007, in person explaining the mischievous deeds of the defendant and giving her equal right in the properties. In fact, the plaintiff had lodged a complaint before the police and issued a legal notice demanding her equal share in the suit properties and filed the suit.

(3.) The suit was resisted by the defendant denying all the averments made in the plaint. It is the definite case of the defendant that his father, in order to avoid complications, in a sound disposing state of mind, had executed a registered settlement deed dated 07.03.2007 in his favour. The defendant also claimed to have accepted and acted upon the settlement deed. As the properties have already been settled in the name of the defendant, the plaintiff cannot have any right over the same, and thus, sought for dismissal of the suit.