Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7. Hence, the plaintiffs had come forward with the present suit seeking a declaration that the 3 settlement deeds dated 09.12.1985, 11.12.1985 and 07.03.2008 are invalid and for partition and separate possession of their 1/5th share each in the suit property.

8. The defendants 1 to 3 would resist the suit contending that the property was self acquired property, in the hands of Periya Munian and in terms of Will dated 15.06.1941, and the settlement deed dated 07.04.1959, Chinna Narayanan was the absolute owner of the property, on his death the property devolved on his son Rangamani, the 2nd defendant and his wife Pappammal. On the death of Pappammal in 1989, her share would also devolve on her only son Rangamani, thus Rangamani is the absolute owner. The said Rangamani had already settled the property in favour of the 3rd defendant Dhanalakshmi and thereafter, in 2008 i.e., on 07.03.2008, the 2nd defendant Rangamani and the 3rd defendant Dhanalakshmi had executed another settlement Deed in favour of the 1st defendant. Therefore, the property would be the absolute property of the 1st defendant. It is also contended that, the plaintiffs got married on 07.11.1982, 23.02.1986 and 10.03.1989 respectively. Therefore, according to the defendants, the plaintiffs would not become coparceners under Act 39/2005. It is also claimed that the plaintiffs were aware of the execution of the settlement deeds referred supra and they cannot challenge the validity of the settlement deeds now. On the above pleadings the defendants sought for dismissal of the suit.

22. The question whether there was a valid alienation of the property prior to the coming into force of the Act will be dealt with while dealing with the validity of the Settlement Deeds dated 09.12.1985, 11.12.1985 and 07.03.2008. For the purpose of deciding whether the plaintiffs would become coparceners or not it is enough to see whether their father was alive on 09.09.2005 and that the property in the hands of the father could be termed as ancestral property.

23. While dealing with issue No.1, it is already been concluded that the property in the hands of Chinna Narayanan was ancestral property. On the birth of the 2nd defendant Rangamani, he would get a right by birth and as observed by Shri.N.R.Raghavachariar's book on Hindu Law in 9th Edition, on birth of the son, the property in the hands of the inheritor viz., Chinna Narayanan, would be held by him as a owner with restricted rights and the son can interdict improper alienation by him.

24. Therefore, upon coming into force of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 1956, [Act 39 of 2005], the plaintiffs would become coparceners along with their father viz., the 2nd defendant and their brother 1st defendant in respect of the property, that is, held by the 2nd defendant. Therefore, the 2nd issue is answered in favour of the plaintiffs to the effect that they would also become coparcenres along with their father.

Issue No.3:

25. This issue relates to the validity of the Settlement Deeds dated 09.12.1985, 11.12.1985 and 07.03.2008. By the two Settlement Deeds dated 09.12.1985 and 11.12.1985, the 2nd defendant had chosen to settle the property in favour of his wife, the 3rd defendant. It is a trite proposition of law, that a coparcener has no right to execute a settlement of his undivided interest in the coparcenery property, either in favor of his wife or their heirs without the consent of other coparceners.