Madras High Court
Chinnamuthu vs Raji on 17 April, 2025
Author: Sathi Kumar Sukumara Kurup
Bench: Sathi Kumar Sukumara Kurup
S.A.No.1378 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 17-04-2025
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP
Second Appeal No.1378 of 2013
---
Chinnamuthu .. Appellant
Versus
1. Raji
2. Marimuthu
3. The Tahsildar,
Palacode Taluk,
Dharmapuri District.
4. The State by District Collector,
Dharmapuri.
5. Muniammal
6. Arumugam
7. Vadivel
8. Rajeshwari
9. Karunanidhi
10. Palaniammal
11. Velayutham .. Respondents
(Respondent-2 died, Respondents 5 to 11 are brought on record as Legal Heirs
of the deceased Respondent-2 vide Court order dated 26.07.2024 made in
C.M.P.Nos.15983, 15984, 15986 of 2023 in S.A.No.1378 of 2013 by SSKJ)
Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code
against the judgment and decree dated 24.11.2011 in A.S. No. 43 of 2010 on
the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Dharmapuri confirming the
judgment and decree dated 27.09.2010 in O.S. No. 76 of 2008 on the file of
the learned District Munsif, Palacode.
For Appellant : Mr. R. Selvakumar
1/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 08:42:09 pm )
S.A.No.1378 of 2013
For R1 and R2 : Mr. R. Bharanidharan
Mr. R. Karthikeyan
For R3 and R4 : Mr. M. Muthusamy
Government Advocate
JUDGMENT
The Second Appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 24.11.2011 made in A.S. No. 43 of 2010 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Dharmapuri confirming the judgment and decree dated 27.09.2010 in O.S. No. 76 of 2008 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Palacode.
2. The Plaintiff, who instituted the suit in O.S. No. 76 of 2008 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Palacode is the Appellant in this Second Appeal. The suit was filed for the relief of declaration of title of the Plaintiff to the suit property and for a consequential permanent injunction restraining the Defendants 3 and 4 from in any manner changing the patta in the name of the Defendants 1 and 2 and for costs.
3. According to the Plaintiff, he is the owner of the property described in the plaint having purchased it by means of a sale deed dated 04.09.1991. The Plaintiff was in possession and enjoyment of the said property without any interference. He also mutated the revenue records in his 2/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 08:42:09 pm ) S.A.No.1378 of 2013 name and paying kist to the Government. According to the Plaintiff, the first Defendant is the Oor Gounder and the second Defendant is Manthiri Gounder in the Village. It is stated that both the Defendants 1 and 2 are influential persons in their village. The Defendants 1 and 2, by influencing their position, exerted enormous pressure on the Plaintiff to execute a settlement deed in their favour. Unable to withstand such pressure, the Plaintiff executed a settlement deed dated 16.11.2000 in favour of the Defendants 1 and 2. Thereafter, the Plaintiff has filed a suit in O.S. No. 12 of 2001 as against the Defendants 1 and 2 and the Sub-Registrar, Palacode. During the pendency of O.S. No. 12 of 2001, the Defendants 1 and 2 have filed a suit in O.S. No. 122 of 2002 and based on the decree dated 21.10.2002 passed thereon got the settlement deed dated 16.11.2000 registered on the file of Sub-Registrar, Palacode. In view of the registration of the settlement deed dated 16.11.2000, the Plaintiff withdrew the suit in O.S. No. 12 of 2001 on 24.02.2003. Later, the Plaintiff sent a notice dated 31.03.2008 calling upon the Defendants from acting upon the settlement deed and to mutate the revenue records, for which no reply was sent. Therefore, the Plaintiff has filed the instant suit in O.S. No. 76 of 2008 for the relief of declaration.
4. On notice, the Defendants 1 and 2 filed a written statement contending inter alia that the suit is false, frivolous and vexatious. The 3/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 08:42:09 pm ) S.A.No.1378 of 2013 Plaintiff and his sons Shanmugam and Jayavel have executed the settlement deed dated 16.11.2000 in favour of the Defendants 1 and 2 for the welfare of Erranahalli Village. According to the Defendants 1 and 2, the settlement deed was also acted upon and the Defendants 1 and 2 took possession of the property. The plaint described property is being used for the welfare of the Village. It is also stated that the Plaintiff has already filed a suit in O.S. No. 12 of 2001 for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction, but he withdrew the suit as not pressed. Later, the Defendants 1 and 2 have filed a suit in O.S. No. 122 of 2002 seeking to issue a direction to the Sub-Registrar, Palacode to register the settlement deed. The suit was decreed on 22.10.2002 and the settlement deed dated 16.11.2000 was registered. After executing the settlement deed, as an after thought, the Plaintiff has filed the present suit. The suit is barred by limitation as it was filed eight years after executing the settlement deed dated 16.11.2000. Further, the Plaintiff has not sought for a declaratory relief to declare the settlement deed dated 16.11.2000 as null and void. When already the Plaintiff has filed the suit in O.S. No. 12 of 2001 and withdrew it, the present suit is barred by the principles of res judicata and accordingly, the Defendants 1 and 2 prayed for dismissal of the suit.
5. Before the trial Court, the Plaintiff examined himself as P.W-1 and his son was examined as P.W-2. Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-10 were marked on 4/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 08:42:09 pm ) S.A.No.1378 of 2013 behalf of the Plaintiff. On behalf of the Defendants, the first Defendant examined himself as D.W-1 and one Govindan was examined as D.W-2. Ex.B-1 to Ex.B-6 were marked on behalf of the Defendants. The trial Court, on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, dismissed the suit, which was confirmed by the First Appellate Court by dismissing the Appeal Suit filed by the Appellant herein in A.S. No. 43 of 2010. Therefore, the Plaintiff has filed the instant Second Appeal.
6. The learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the suit was filed for declaration of title on the ground that the settlement deed dated 16.11.2000 was obtained by the Defendants 1 and 2 by force and coercion. The learned Counsel for the Appellant also submitted that the Defendants 1 and 2 have forcibly taken away the title deeds of the property from the Plaintiff as though he had executed sale deed in their favour. The cause of action for filing the suit arose when the Plaintiff apprehended that the Defendants 1 and 2 may mutate the revenue records and obtain patta from the Defendants 3 and 4 and in which case, it will be difficult for the Plaintiff to assert a right over the plaint described property. In any event, the settlement deed dated 16.11.2000 was not executed for a valuable consideration. The settlement deed dated 16.11.2000 was executed by force and duress. Even in the written statement, the Defendants 1 and 2 claim that the suit property is being used for 5/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 08:42:09 pm ) S.A.No.1378 of 2013 the welfare of the Villagers. If the suit property is required for the welfare of the Villagers, it is for the Defendants 3 and 4 to initiate acquisition proceedings or any other proceedings and the settlement deed dated 16.11.2000 ought not to have been made to be executed by the Defendants 1 and 2 by force and coercion. The withdrawal of the suit in O.S. No. 12 of 2001 will not be a bar for filing the present suit as it was dismissed as not pressed and it was not disposed of on merits. At the time when the suit in O.S. No. 12 of 2001 was filed the settlement deed dated 16.11.2000 was not registered on the file of Sub-Registrar, Palacode. The suit in O.S. No. 12 of 2001 was filed on apprehension that an encumbrance may be caused in respect of the property in question. The suit in O.S. No. 12 of 2001 was filed when the Defendants 1 and 2 forcibly snatched the title deeds of the property and attempted to create an encumbrance. During the pendency of the suit in O.S. No.12 of 2001, the Defendants 1 and 2 filed O.S. No. 122 of 2002 and based on the decree passed thereof, got the settlement deed registered. Therefore, the cause of action that arose for filing the suit in O.S. No. 12 of 2001 is not the same for filing the present suit in O.S. No. 76 of 2008.
7. The learned Counsel for the Appellant invited the attention of this Court to the discussion of evidence by the learned District Munsif, Palacode in paragraphs 6 to 8. Also, the learned Counsel for the Appellant invited the 6/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 08:42:09 pm ) S.A.No.1378 of 2013 attention of this Court to the judgment of the learned Sub Judge, Palacode in paragraph 10 and 12 of the Appeal. According to the learned Counsel, the appellate Court was carried away by Ex.B-6, Settlement deed dated 16.11.2000 said to have been executed by the Plaintiff voluntarily. The Courts below brushed aside the specific deposition of the Plaintiff that the settlement deed was obtained by force. Even otherwise, the contention of the Defendants all along is that the property of the Plaintiff is used by them for the welfare of the Village. If a property is required to be utilised for any public purpose, the Defendants 1 and 2 are legally not competent to obtain a settlement deed from the Plaintiff and use it for the welfare of the Village without even paying any consideration. This would amount to snatching the right, title and interest over the suit property from the Plaintiff by misusing and abusing the position.
8. The learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that during the pendency of the Appeal, the Respondents 1 and 2 died but he is unable to bring on record their legal heirs as they had been impleaded in the suit in their status as "Oor Gounder and Mandhiri Gounder" and not in their present personal capacities. However, on the death of the second Defendant, Marimuthu, the Appellant has got the particulars about the legal heirs of the second Defendant and accordingly, they were brought on record as Respondents 5 to 11 in this Appeal. But, the legal heirs of the first Defendant 7/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 08:42:09 pm ) S.A.No.1378 of 2013 could not be brought on record. In any event, non-impleading the legal heirs of the first Defendant will not in any manner affect the adjudication of this Second Appeal on merits.
9. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the contesting Respondent 1 and 2 in the Second Appeal submitted that the Plaintiff and his son have executed a gift deed in favour of "Oor Gounder and Mandhiri Gounder"
without mentioning names. The gift deed was registered with Sub-Registrar concerned. There are witnesses to the registration of the deed to show the due execution of the deed. Therefore the Plaintiff is legally estopped from questioning the settlement deed. The Plaintiff had executed the gift deed in favour of the villagers for their common interest and after having executed a gift deed, the Plaintiff instituted the suit in O.S. No. 12 of 2001 for declaration of title. The suit in O.S. No. 12 of 2001 was dismissed as withdrawn without obtaining leave of the Court under Order 23 of C.P.C. While so, in the year 2008, once again the Plaintiff filed the present suit seeking the very same relief of declaration of title to the property. Instead, the Plaintiff had only sought to declare title to the suit property. The Plaintiff having stated in the plaint that he had executed settlement deed in favour of “Oor Gounder and Mandhiri Gounder” he along with his sons executed such a deed. If that was not voluntary, he ought to have sought to declare the deed executed by him in 8/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 08:42:09 pm ) S.A.No.1378 of 2013 favour of “Oor Gounder and Mandhiri Gounder” as null and void with consequential reliefs. Here he had by his clever drafting, avoided those reliefs but had sought only declaration of title. The Plaintiff and his sons having executed a settlement deed without seeking declaration, to declare the said deed as null and void, cannot seek declaration of title. The earlier suit in O.S.No.12 of 2001 filed by the Plaintiff was withdrawn. Before withdrawal, the Plaintiff ought to have obtained leave of the Court to file fresh suit on the same cause of action. Here he had not obtained such leave before dismissal of the earlier suit in O.S.No.12 of 2001 as withdrawn. Therefore, the claim of the Plaintiff is hit by Order XXIII of C.P.C. Further, the Plaintiff should have filed the present suit within 3 years after executing the settlement deed. The plaint in O.S. No. 76 of 2008 does not state specifically that "Oor Gounder and Mandhiri Gounder" obtained such deed by coercive mode. It is also not the case of the Plaintiff that Defendants 1 and 2 have misused the property for their selfish needs. Now, the properties have been converted as a shopping complex which had been leased out as shops. The Plaintiff cannot now seek relief of declaration of title in this suit. The Courts below, taking note of the fact that Ex.B-6, settlement deed dated 16.11.2000 remains unchallenged by the Plaintiff, have rightly dismissed the suit filed by the Plaintiff and it does not call for any interference by this Court.
9/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 08:42:09 pm ) S.A.No.1378 of 2013
10. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the Respondents 3 and 4 submitted that the Second Appeal is to be dismissed as abated on the death of the Defendants 1 and 2, who were impleaded in their official capacity as Oor Gounder or Manthiri Gounder. Further, he would submit that the conduct of the Plaintiff is to be noted. The Plaintiff, having executed settlement deed along with his sons has filed the suit alone. The Plaintiff has not impleaded any of the Villagers as party to the suit. He had already filed the suit in O.S. No.12 of 2001 and for reasons best known to him he has not pressed the relief sought for in the said suit. Subsequently, another suit in O.S. No. 122 of 2002 was filed by the Defendants 1 and 2, which was decreed in their favour. If the Plaintiff was aggrieved, he ought to have challenged the settlement deed dated 16.11.2000 by filing a suit within three years as per the Limitation Act. But he had not chosen to file it. After 8 years of execution of settlement deed dated 16.11.2000, he had approached the Court by filing the suit in the year 2008.
11. It is the further contention of the learned Government Advocate appearing for the Respondents 3 and 4 that the Respondent 1 and 2 have proved the due execution of settlement deed by marking the original settlement deed as Ex.B-6. As on the date of the filing of the suit, the property vest with 10/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 08:42:09 pm ) S.A.No.1378 of 2013 the villagers of Erranahalli. Therefore the learned District Munsif had rightly dismissed the suit which was also confirmed by the learned Sub Judge, Palacode on Appeal. He therefore submitted that the Appeal has no merits and the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below have to be confirmed.
12. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant, the learned Counsel for the Respondents 1, 2, 5 to 11 and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the Respondents 3 and 4 and perused the materials placed on record.
13. At the time of admission of this Second Appeal on 06.02.2014, this Court framed the following questions of law for consideration and they are:-
(i) Whether the Defendants 1 and 2, who claim to be Oor Gounder and Mandhiri Gounder are legally recognizable entities in law, in obtaining a Sale deed as if they act so on behalf of the Village, when admittedly, the position of Defendants 1 and 2 are not supported by any statutory status?
(ii) Whether the Courts below are right in upholding the validity of a document (Ex.B6) merely because the same has been proved as per the law of evidence, by attested witness, etc., when the same has been admittedly obtained by persons, who have proclaimed themselves witout any authority of law as if guardians of Village people, for which they have no right to do so, as claimed in the written statement, which document is a document of nullity as 11/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 08:42:09 pm ) S.A.No.1378 of 2013 admitted by the Defendants 1 and 2 themselves?
14. On perusal of the plaint averments, it is evident that the foremost submission of the Plaintiff is that the Defendants 1 and 2, by abusing their official position as Oor Gounder and Mandhiri Gounder exerted enormous pressure on him to part with his property for the welfare of the Villagers. Accordingly, a settlement deed dated 16.11.2000 was executed by the Plaintiff along with his sons by coercion and force. Admittedly, the settlement deed was not executed for any consideration paid to the Plaintiff. The Settlement Deed was executed at free of cost in favour of the Oor Gounder and Mandhiri Gounder of the Village. The settlement deed was also registered on the file of Sub-Registrar, Palacode.
15. The submission of the learned Counsel for the Appellant cannot be accepted in the light of the circumstances highlighted by the learned Counsel for the Respondent. The gift deed was executed by the Plaintiff and his son in favour of the Oor Gounder and Mandhiri Gounder. Without mentioning the name, the gift deed was registered with the Sub Registrar concerned. There are witnesses to the registration of the deed to show due execution of the deed. The Plaintiff has executed a registered gift deed in favour of the Oor Gounder and Mandhiri Gounder and the said gift deed 12/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 08:42:09 pm ) S.A.No.1378 of 2013 having been acted upon by the said Oor Gounder and Mandhiri Gounder. Now by virtue of principles of estoppel under Section 115 of the Indian Evidence Act, he is estopped from contending that he had not voluntarily executed the gift deed which was a registered gift deed. Registration of the gift deed gives a presumption that it was bonafide, true having registered it now after several years, the Plaintiff is estopped from claiming that he did not gift it voluntarily by the principle of estoppel.
16. The claim of the Plaintiff cannot be accepted in the Courts of law. As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the Respondents 1 and 2 in the Second Appeal that the Plaintiff having instituted the Suit for declaration of title between the parties. The Suit was dismissed as withdrawn. While so, in the year 2018, a fresh Suit was filed on the same cause of action without obtaining leave of the Court seeking the very same relief. In the present Suit, the Plaintiff had not sought for declaration to declare the settlement by the Plaintiff and his two sons in favour of Oor Gounder and Mandhiri Gounder as null and void. The Plaintiff ought to have filed the present Suit within three years after execution of settlement deed.
17. As pointed out by the learned Counsel for the Respondent, the 13/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 08:42:09 pm ) S.A.No.1378 of 2013 Plaintiff in O.S.No.76 of 2008 does not state specifically that Oor Gounder and Mandhiri Gounder obtained such deeds by coercive method. It is also not the case of the Plaintiff that the Defendants 1 and 2 misused the property for his selfish need. The beneficiaries of the settlement deed were made to believe that the Plaintiff with an intention for common cause for the benefit of entire Villagers had gifted the property. On such gift, the Defendants were made to believe and they had acted on the gift deed by developing the property by putting up construction. Now at this length of time, the Plaintiff cannot seek any relief.
18. The Defendants 1 and 2 had converted the vacant land into a shopping complex and further leased it out as their shops. At this length of time, the Plaintiff cannot seek declaration of title to the Suit properties. The trial Court as well as the first Appellate Court taking note of the fact that Ex.B- 6-settlement deed dated 16.11.2000 which is also registered remained unchallenged by the Plaintiff had rightly dismissed the Suit filed by the Plaintiff. One more circumstance highlighted by the learned Counsel for the Respondents is that the Plaintiff's sons who are parties to the settlement deed did not join, the Plaintiff seeking declaration of title of the property. The claim of res judicata invoked by the Defendants is not applicable to the facts 14/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 08:42:09 pm ) S.A.No.1378 of 2013 of this case. O.S. No. 1 of 2012 was dismissed as withdrawn. The subsequent Suit in O.S. No. 76 of 2008 is filed belatedly. If the earlier Suit had been dismissed on merits after framing of issues, then it may attract res judicata. But the earlier Suit was dismissed as withdrawn. Therefore, the claim of res judicata is not applicable to the facts of this case. If there is a finding after framing of issues and issues were answered based on evidence, only then for the issues in the earlier Suit and the issues in the subsequent Suit, the Judgment of the earlier Suit will be treated as res judicata. Here such circumstance does not exist. The Defendants claim it is hit by res judicata. If the Issues are framed and answered after full contest, the principles of res judicata is applicable. Here no doubt, it is a subsequent Suit, but it was filed belated. The Plaintiff offered his explanation as to why he had not pressed the earlier Suit and not instituted the present Suit. In the course of the arguments, the learned Counsel for the Appellant/Plaintiff submitted that Oor Gounder and Mandhiri Gounder died, since it is a Suit filed by the Plaintiff based on the designation of parties, he is unable to implead the legal heirs. The legal heirs are not expected to be impleaded in this case as this case is based on the position of individuals calling themselves as Oor Gounder and Mandhiri Gounder. The said contention of the learned Counsel for the Appellant cannot be accepted as it amounts to granting a Judgment and decree against the 15/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 08:42:09 pm ) S.A.No.1378 of 2013 deceased Defendants 1 and 2. If the successor/legal heirs are not impleaded, necessarily the Second Appeal has to be dismissed.
19. The earlier Suit in O.S.No.12 of 2001 was dismissed as withdrawn and without obtaining the leave of the Court under Order XXIII, the subsequent suit has been instituted in the year 2008. The submission of the learned Counsel for the Appellant in Second Appeal is that since the Respondents 1 and 2 are identified as Oor Gounder and Mandhiri Gounder which is a designation their successor could not be impleaded. The Respondents 1 and 2 died pending Appeal. There cannot be any decree against the deceased person. Therefore, what are all argued by the learned Counsel for the Plaintiff even if admitted to be bona fide and true, the Court cannot come to the rescue of the person who had wantonly withdrawn the earlier Suit which he had filed within three years from the date of execution of such deed. A party who sleeps over his right cannot be granted the relief by the Civil Court. As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the Respondent, the Plaint in O.S. No. 76 of 2008 does not specifically state that Oor Gounder and Mandhiri Gounder obtained such a deed by coercive method. It is also not the case of the Plaintiff that the Defendants 1 and 2 misused the property for their selfish needs. The property having been 16/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 08:42:09 pm ) S.A.No.1378 of 2013 converted into shopping complex, the Plaintiff cannot seek the relief of declaration of his title. Both the trial Court and the first Appellate Court had taken note that Ex.B-6-settlement deed dated 16.11.2000 executed by this Appellant as Plaintiff in the trial Court remains unchallenged by the Plaintiff. Therefore, the dismissal of the Suit is found proper and well-reasoned Judgment. It does not call for any interference by this Court.
20. As contended by the learned Government Advocate, while executing the settlement deed, the Plaintiff along with his sons had executed the settlement deed, but the Suit is filed by the Plaintiff alone. The Plaintiff had also not impleaded any of the Villagers as a party to the Suit. As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the Respondents 1 and 2 and the learned Government Advocate for the Respondents 3 and 4, having filed the Suit in O.S. No.12 of 2001 and withdrawn the same for the reasons best known to the Plaintiff, now he cannot seek relief by filing this Suit. Had the Plaintiff been aggrieved he ought to have challenged the settlement deed dated 16.11.2000 by filing the Suit within three years as per the Limitation Act. He had filed this Suit in O.S.No.76 of 2008, 8 years after the execution of the settlement deed dated 06.11.2000. As on the date of filing of the Suit, the property vested with the Villagers of Erranahalli Village. Therefore, the learned District Munsif had rightly dismissed the Suit which was confirmed by 17/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 08:42:09 pm ) S.A.No.1378 of 2013 the learned Sub Judge, Palacode on Appeal.
21. In the light of the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the Respondents 1 and 2, the learned Government Advocate for the Respondents 3 and 4, the submissions of the learned Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 4 are found acceptable considering the conduct of the Plaintiff. He has withdrawn the earlier Suit and then filed the present Suit 8 years belatedly. He had not impleaded his sons who are the parties to the settlement deed earlier. Now, so-called Oor Gounder and Mandhiri Gounder are not alive. Also, on perusal of Ex.B-6, it is found that it is a settlement deed executed by the Appellant in the Second Appeal, Plaintiff before the learned District Munsif, Palacode, on 16.11.2000 and it was registered only in 2002 as document No.1205 of 2002. It was executed by the Plaintiff and his sons Shanmugam and Jeyavel in the name of Oor Gounder and Manthiri Gounder which does not specify the name of the party to whom it is conveyed and in whose name it is registered. The names Oorgounder and Manthiri Gounder are vague regarding identification of the individual. Further, the Plaintiff ought to have instituted the suit seeking declaration that the settlement deed under Ex.B-6 to be declared as null and void either within three years from the date of execution of settlement deed or within three years from the date of registration of the document. The Plaintiff had not done so. The Plaintiff had 18/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 08:42:09 pm ) S.A.No.1378 of 2013 filed the suit in the year 2008. Also, the sons of the Plaintiff had not been impleaded as co-plaintiffs. That creates doubt in the minds of the Court regarding the relief sought by the Plaintiff. Therefore, after this length of time, the Plaintiff cannot be permitted to agitate his claim regarding cancellation of the deed or seeking the relief of declaration that the settlement deed is null and void. Therefore, this Court cannot pass any decree in favour of the Plaintiff after the death of the Respondents 1 and 2 and it amounts to granting a decree against the dead persons which is impermissible under Law. Therefore, this Appeal lacks merits.
22. In the light of the above discussions, the substantial questions of law is answered in favour of the Defendants and against the Plaintiff.
In the result, this Second Appeal is dismissed. The Judgment and Decree dated 24.11.2011 made in A.S. No. 43 of 2010 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Dharmapuri, confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 27.09.2010 made in O.S.No.76 of 2008 on the file of District Munsif, Palacode are upheld. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
17-04-2025
shl
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
19/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 08:42:09 pm )
S.A.No.1378 of 2013
SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP, J
shl
To
1. The District Munsif,
Palacode.
2. The Sub Judge,
Dharmapuri.
3. The Section Officer,
V.R. Section,
High Court Madras.
Judgment in
S.A.No.1378 of 2013
17-04-2025
20/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 08:42:09 pm )