Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Aggrieved over the concurrent findings made in A.S.No.5 of 2006 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Kovilpatti and in O.S.No.29 of 2004 on the file of the District Munsif, Vilathikulam, the appellants, who are the plaintiffs in the suit, are before this Court with this Second Appeal.

2. In earlier, the appellants herein filed a suit as against the respondents, in O.S.No.29 of 2004, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Vilathikulam and seeking the relief of declaration, declaring that the plaintiffs are entitled to the suit properties as vested remainder holders after the lifetime of the first defendant free from all encumbrances with costs of the suit.

5. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as, as described before the trial Court.

6. The averments made in the plaint, in short, are as follows:

(i) One Kuppa Reddiar, having got the properties under the partition decree, had executed a settlement deed in respect of the suit properties under a settlement dated 04.12.1972, under which, the settlor and the first defendant should enjoy the suit property without power of alienation, after whose death, it will go to the children of the first defendant. The plaintiffs are the children of the first defendant, who are entitled to the suit properties as vested remainder holders. The first defendant is the father of the plaintiffs and the 2 nd defendant is the father of the first defendant. The settlor in total contravention of the settlement deed seems to have executed a Will dated 29.08.1978 in favour of his son, namely, the second defendant, by cancelling the settlement deed under the cancellation deed dated 25.09.1978.

(ii) It is not correct to state that the settlor Kuppa Reddiar and the first defendant should enjoy the properties without power of alienation and that the plaintiffs, who are the children of the first defendant are entitled to the suit properties as vested remainder holders.

http://www.judis.nic.in

(iii) The settlor Kuppa Reddiar executed a Will dated 29.08.1978 bequeathing his properties to the 2nd defendant. The contention of the plaintiffs that the deed dated 04.12.1972 was a Settlement deed which cannot be revoked unilaterally in the Sub-Register Office is not correct. The said deed was not a settlement deed and the same was validly revoked.

http://www.judis.nic.in

(vi) The 1st defendant is not entitled to the suit properties and as such, the plaintiffs cannot derive any right, title and interest over the schedule properties after the life-time of the 1st defendant. The plaintiffs are not at all the vested remainder holders to claim declaration of such a right after the life time of the 1st defendant.

(vii) The plaintiffs and the 1st defendant are the members of the Hindu Undivided Family and they lived under the same roof. The 1st defendant has attested the sale deed dated 08.09.1980 executed by the 2nd defendant and as such, the allegation that the 1st plaintiff came to know the sale in favour of 3rd and 4th defendants only in 1997 is false.