CHANDRAN AND OTHER Vs. SENDURPANDIAN AND OTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs in the suit in O.S.No.289 of 2013 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Sankarankovil, are the appellants in this Second Appeal.

(2.) The appellants filed a suit in O.S.No. 289 of 2013 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Sankarankovil, for a declaration that the suit first schedule properties are the exclusive properties of the first plaintiff and for consequential injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. The suit is also for a declaration that the suit second schedule properties are the exclusive properties of the second plaintiff and for consequential injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit second schedule properties. The further relief in the suit is for declaring that the document executed by the first defendant in favour of the second defendant on 25.04.2011 as a family settlement is void and for directing the registration of such decision declaring the document dated 25.04.2011 as void by the Sub Registrar of Sankarankovil under Section 31(2) of the Specific Relief Act.

(3.) The first defendant in the suit is the brother of second appellant herein who is the second plaintiff in the suit. The second respondent is the second defendant in the suit and the daughter of first respondent herein. The case of the plaintiffs in the suit/appellants herein are as follows: 3. 1. The properties shown in the first item in the first schedule originally belonged to one Maruthiah Thevar, son of Muthu Arunasala Thevar and the said Maruthiah Thevar executed a registered power of attorney deed in favour of the second appellant on 25.01.1995. The second plaintiff, as power of attorney agent of the said Maruthiah Thevar, executed the sale deeds dated 25.10.2012 in favour of the first appellant and that the first appellant, the first plaintiff became the exclusive owner of the properties described in the first item of first schedule. 3. 2. The properties described in second item in first schedule originally belonged to one Vella Pandi son of Shanmugaiah Thevar and he executed a power of attorney deed in favour of the second plaintiff on 03.03.1997. The second plaintiff/second appellant as power of attorney agent of Vella Pandi, executed a registered sale deed dated 25.10.2012 in favour of the first plaintiff in respect of the properties shown as second item in first schedule. By virtue of the three sale deeds dated 25.10.2012 executed by the second plaintiff in favour of the first plaintiff, the properties described in first schedule became the exclusive properties of the first plaintiff. Similarly, the properties described in the second schedule were purchased by the second plaintiff under three registered sale deeds dated 16.11.1974, 16.12.1983 and 15.05.1984. Thus, the properties which are described in the first schedule are the absolute properties of the first plaintiff and the properties purchased by the second plaintiff and described in the second schedule are the exclusive properties of the second plaintiff. 3. 3. The first defendant who is the brother of the second plaintiff executed a settlement deed dated 25.04.2011 in favour of the first defendant's daughter, namely, the second defendant including the properties that belong to the plaintiffs. The said settlement deed is void as the first defendant (The first respondent in this appeal) had no right or title over any of the items specified in the first and second schedule. Since the registration of the settlement deed was with an intention to create a cloud on the exclusive title of the plaintiffs, the Court has to hold that the settlement deed is void and consequently, such decision should be sent to the Sub Registrar of Sankarankovil, for registration. The plaintiffs are in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the suit properties and therefore, they are entitled to seek relief of consequential injunction.