PONNAMMAL Vs. KUMUDHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff in O.S.No.33 of 2005 (renumbered as O.S.No.28 of 2009) who succeed in obtaining a decree, declaring the Settlement Deed dated 14.11.1977, is valid and binding upon the defendants and permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with her peaceful possession of the suit property, on its reversal by the lower appellate Court has come up with this second appeal.

(2.) The suit property admittedly belonged to one Subramaniam who died leaving behind his wife, the plaintiff, Ponnammal, only son Thangaraj and three daughters namely Kamalaveni, Pushpam and Chitra. On the death of Subramaniam, the three daughters and the plaintiff executed a release deed in favour of Thangaraj, the only son of the plaintiff on 10.02.1975. On 14.11.1977, the said Thangaraj executed a registered instrument of settlement conferring a life estate on the plaintiff and upon her death, the property is to revert back to him and his heirs. Thangaraj died on October 2002. Claiming that the defendants who are the wife and son of Thangaraj attempted to interfere with her possession of the suit property, the plaintiff filed a suit for bare injuction in O.S.No.59 of 2004 before the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Perundurai. The defendants entered appearance and contended that the settlement deed is sham and nominal and it was never acted upon. Upon such plea, the plaintiff withdrew the suit in O.S.No.59 of 2004 with a liberty to file a fresh suit and has come forward with the present suit praying for the reliefs stated above.

(3.) The defendants resisted the suit contending that the settlement deed dated 14.11.1977 is sham and nominal document and it was never acted upon. The revenue records continued in the name of late Thangaraj. It is also claimed by the 1st defendant that the plaintiff had claimed that she had borrowed heavily on the security of the suit property and such borrowing will not be binding on her.