Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3.1. Further case of the plaintiff is that during his lifetime, Ramalingam purchased the Suit Properties out of his own funds. After the demise of Ramalingam, the plaintiff's husband - Venugopal also passed away issueless on May 11, 2012. After the demise of Venugopal, the plaintiff has got 1/5 share in the undivided Suit Properties. Subsequently, when the plaintiff demanded partition, the defendants refused to partition the Suit Properties. Hence, the plaintiff issued a legal notice to the defendants on February 19, 2013 and the defendants replied on February 26, 2013. In the reply notice, it was stated that the plaintiff's husband - Venugopal and the defendants 2 to 4 have already executed a registered Settlement Deed dated February 18, 2005 bearing Document No.154 of 2005 on the file of Sub Registrar's Office, Anna Nagar, in favour of the first defendant and thus, the entire Suit Properties belongs to the first defendant. On coming to know about this, the plaintiff verified with the Office of the Sub Registrar, Anna Nagar and came to know that no such Settlement Deed was executed and registered. Therefore, the plaintiff sent a rejoinder notice on March 20, 2013 calling upon the defendants to https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/07/2025 04:06:58 pm )  A.S.NO.455 OF 2020 furnish the copy of the Settlement Deed. The defendants did not respond to the rejoinder notice. Hence, the plaintiff filed the Original Suit initially for partition.

DEFENDANTS' CASE

4. The sum and substance of the defendants' case as projected by them during trial is that Item No.1 of the Suit Properties originally belonged to Late. Ramalingam who is the husband of the first defendant, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/07/2025 04:06:58 pm )  A.S.NO.455 OF 2020 the father of defendants 2 to 4 and also the father-in-law of the plaintiff. Ramalingam passed away on July 26, 1990 leaving behind the plaintiff's husband - R.Venugopal and the defendants as his legal heirs / legal representatives to succeed his estate and interest. After the demise of Ramalingam, the plaintiff's husband - R.Venugopal and defendants 2 to 4 jointly executed a Gift Settlement Deed on February 18, 2005, whereby Item No.1 of the Suit Properties was bequeathed in favour of the first defendant. From the date of the Settlement Deed, the first defendant alone has title and interest in respect of Item No.1 of the Suit Properties.

9. Feeling aggrieved, the second defendant has preferred this First Appeal under Section 96 read with Orders XLI of the CPC. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/07/2025 04:06:58 pm )  A.S.NO.455 OF 2020 ARGUMENTS

10. Mr.Balan Haridas, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants / defendants would argue that the Trial Court failed to consider the documents and evidence in right perspective. After the demise of Ramalingam, the plaintiff's husband - R.Venugopal and the defendants 2 to 4 executed Ex-B.1 - Registered Settlement Deed bequeathing their share in favour of the first defendant. Afterwards, the first defendant alone is in possession and enjoyment of Item No.1 of Suit Properties. As regards Item No.2 of Suit Properties, it is a Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board’s property allotted to one Umapathy. However, the EMIs are being paid by the first defendant. After the demise of the plaintiff's husband, the plaintiff is permitted to reside in Item No.2 of the Suit Properties out of mercy and till date, the plaintiff is residing in Item No.2 of Suit Properties as a permissive occupant. The Trial Court failed to consider the fact that Ex-B.1 - Settlement Deed has been acted upon. Further, during the lifetime of the plaintiff's husband - R.Venugopal, he did not raise any question about Ex-B.1 - Settlement Deed. The plaintiff's husband, who is the competent person to deny the execution of Ex-B.1 - Settlement Deed, has not denied the same during his lifetime. In these circumstances, the plaintiff claiming through her husband – R.Venugopal https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/07/2025 04:06:58 pm )  A.S.NO.455 OF 2020 is not entitled to question Ex-B.1 - Settlement Deed. Further, at the time of registration, a Voter Identity Card was produced to prove the identity of the plaintiff’s husband. In the said identity card, there was a mismatch with the plaintiff’s husband’s name. Based on this alone, it cannot be said that Ex-B.1 - Settlement Deed is a fabricated one. Accordingly, he prayed to allow the appeal and set aside the Trial Court's Judgment and Decree.

(iv) Whether Item No.2 of the Suit Properties is available for partition?

DISCUSSION

13. Heard on either side. Perused the entire evidence available on record.

14. The plaintiff's father-in-law, Late Ramalingam, first married one Parvathi and through her, plaintiff's husband - R.Venugopal was born. The said Parvathi passed away in or about 1972. Thereafter, Ramalingam married the first defendant as his second wife in the year 1973. In the second marriage, defendants 2 to 4 were born. Ramalingam https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/07/2025 04:06:58 pm )  A.S.NO.455 OF 2020 passed away on July 26, 1990. Subsequently, the plaintiff's husband – R.Venugopal passed away on May 11, 2012. The plaintiff has no children. There is no dispute with regard to the aforesaid facts.