Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2. The plaint averments are as follows:-

The suit property originally belonged to T.K.T. Nayagammal absolutely and she had two daughters viz. Sivabhushanammal and M. Kokilambal. Nayagammal executed a settlement deed dated 9.8.1940 in respect of the suit property. As per the Settlement deed, she reserved for herself the right to enjoy the suit property during her life time without any powers of alienation and after her life time, her two daughters shall take the suit property absolutely with full powers of alienation and after their life time, their respective sons and daughters shall take absolutely the share which devolves on the two daughters. Though the document is styled as a deed of settlement, it is only a Will. The clause in the settlement deed giving right to the sons and daughters of the two daughters alone would prevail and hence the plaintiff as the only legal heir of Sivabhushanammal, the first daughter of Nayagammal would be entitled to her share absolutely after the death of Sivabhushanammal. Nayagammal intended to give only a life estate to her two daughters and absolute rights in favour of their sons and daughters. Nayagammal died on 27.12.1989 and her second daughter M. Kokilambal also died on 21.10.1985. Sivabhushanammal died on 13.4.1994. The legal heirs of Kokilambal viz. defendants 2 to 7 on the death of Nayagammal would be entitled to 1/2 share in the suit property. Sivabhushanammal had only a life estate and whileso, she executed a deed of settlement dated 19.11.1979 at the instigation of her husband and father of the plaintiff P.L. Shanmugasundaram settling her right, title and interest over the suit property in favour of the 1st defendant, who is her grandson and son of the plaintiff. The said settlement deed is void in law since the settler herself did not have the right to make an absolute settlement. Even assuming that the settler had an absolute interest over 1/2 share of the suit property, the interest was only a contingent interest and the same becomes vested interest only on the death of Nayagammal. On the date of death of Nayagammal, Sivabhushanammal's right becomes absolute right. Even assuming she had an absolute interest, the right becomes vested right only on 27.12.1989, the date of death of Nayagammal. Therefore, the settlement deed dated 19.11.1979 is not valid and the 1st defendant cannot lay any claim to 1/2 share of the suit property. The 1st defendant has been collecting the rents from the suit property after the death of Sivabhushanammal. Defendants 2 to 7 filed a suit in C.S.No.1324 of 1991 for partition and the same is pending before this Court. The plaintiff and the first defendant were impleaded in the said suit as legal representatives of Sivabhushanammal. The 8th defendant is the tenant in respect of the premises and RCOP 122 of 1991 filed by the defendants 2 to 7 for fixation of fair rent is pending. The first defendant has been paying 1/2 of the rental income to defendants 2 to 7 and appropriating the other 1/2 of the rental income unauthorisedly. The first defendant cannot seek any right in the property under the said settlement, as the settlement itself could not have been executed by Sivabhushanammal. Hence the suit.

5. On the above pleadings, the following issues were framed:

(1) Whether the document dated 9.8.1940 executed by Nayagammal, is a settlement or Will ?
(2) Whether the Deed of Settlement dated 9.8.1940 conferred absolute right on her two daughters Mrs.Sivabhushanammal and Mrs.Kokilambal ?
(3) Whether the Deed of Settlement executed by Mrs. Sivabhushanammal is void in law ?
(4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to declarations prayed for ?
(5) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to injunction prayed for ?
(6) Whether the 1st defendant is liable to render accounts of income in respect of 1/2 share to plaintiff for the period from 13.4.1994 ?
(7) Is the suit maintainable against defendants 2 to 7 ?
(8) To what relief are parties entitled to ?

6. Issues 1 to 8:- The plaintiff has filed this suit seeking for declaration that he is entitled to half share in the schedule mentioned property; that the Settlement Deed executed by Sivabhushanammal dated 19.11.1979 is void in law and consequential permanent injunction and rendition of accounts, alleging that the original owner of the suit property Nayagammal executed a registered settlement deed on 9.8.1940; that though the said document was styled as settlement, it was in effect only a Will; that Nayagammal reserved for herself the right to enjoy the property during her life time; that her two daughters viz. Kokilambal and Sivabhushanammal should take the property after her life time and that after their life time, their respective sons and daughters should take the property absolutely; that Nayagammal died on 27.12.1989; that as per the said document, the plaintiff as the only heir of the first daughter of the said Nayagammal viz. Sivabhushanammal would be entitled to half share in the property absolutely; that the mother of the plaintiff Sivabhushanammal died in the year 1994 and thus the half of the suit property has devolved on the plaintiff; that the said Sivabhushanammal who had no absolute interest over the suit property to the extent of half share during the life time of Nayagammal, has executed a registered deed of settlement at the instigation of her husband and in favour of the first defendant on 19.11.1979, which is void in law since the settler Sivabhushanammal herself did not have the right to make an absolute settlement and since she was enjoying only a life estate over the half of the suit property; that even assuming that the settler Sivabhushanammal had an absolute interest "over the half share of the suit property as per the deed executed by Nayagammal, the interest was only a contingent interest and became vested only on the death of Nayagammal; that Sivabhushanammal executed the said settlement deed in favour of the first defendant even in 1979 i.e., during the life time of Nayagammal and hence even on that ground also the first defendant cannot claim any right in the half share of the suit property; that the first defendant has been unlawfully and illegally collecting rents from the suit property from the time of the death of Sivabhushanammal and hence the plaintiff should be granted a decree with all the abovestated reliefs.