Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7. The mother of the parties by her conduct and acts given up her right of enjoyment for her life. The plaintiff and the first defendant are each in possession of half share by convenience sake without any partition. Since the settlement deed is void, the plaintiff and the 1st defendant is entitled to half share. In the alternative also, the plaintiff is entitled to half share. Inspite of repeated demands, the 1st defendant is refusing to agree for an amicable partition. It is no longer possible to remain together. Hence, the suit.

8. The Written statement of the first defendant adopted by the second and third defendants reads as follows:

It is immaterial whether the plaintiff and the first defendant were minors or not, at the time when the settlement deed was executed. Chinnappa gounder had right, interest and title in respect of the suit properties and he was well within his rights when he executed the settlement deed. The said Chinnappa Gounder was the Manager and Kartha and he was entitled to execute the settlement deed dated 10-4-1946. The said deed is valid, enforceable, proper, legal and acted upon. Therefore, it is not correct to say that the settlement deed is void or invalid. This one aspect would go to show that the plaintiff is not sure of his ground or he has no ground at all. Neither the plaintiff nor the first defendant is entitled to any share but the defendants 2 and 3 alone are entitled to the entire property.

9. The plaintiff should stick to a definite stand and he should stand or fall taking one and only stand. The plaintiff either should accept the settlement deed or should reject it. At one breadth he cannot say that the settlement deed is void and another breadth, he should not say that as per settlement deed, he is entitled to get half share in the suit properties. If the settlement deed is held valid, then the plaintiff will get only life interest and he cannot get any share in the suit properties.

23. Since the properties under dispute were enjoyed by late Chinnappa Gounder in his own right and executed a settlement deed for the same for the benefit of the family members including the plaintiff, it cannot be stated that the said settlement deed is ab-initio void. Admittedly, the patta stands in the name of late Chinnappa Gounder while executing the settlement deed for the benefit of family members, which is marked as Ex.A1.

24. Even otherwise, the said settlement deed cannot be stated to be void. At best it can be a voidable document. The said voidable document can become valid on the happening of certain things. In this case, the plaintiff has not questioned the validity of the settlement deed soon after attaining majority and before the expiry of period of limitation as contemplated under the Act. In such view of the fact, the plaintiff cannot say that the suit settlement deed is a void document. The Lower Court has also dealt this point in that line and rightly held that the suit settlement deed is valid and binding on the plaintiff and accordingly answered this point against the plaintiff. There is no error or illegal in the findings of the Lower Court in this regard. I do not find any infirmity or impropriety in the findings of the Lower Court in this regard. The findings of the Lower Court is in order and does not require any interference. Hence, this issue is answered against the plaintiff.