Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

11. The next question to be considered is as to whether the settlement deeds are void or voidable. Since the validity of the settlement deeds is raised, the issue needs to be addressed by this Court before proceeding further. Admittedly, all the settlement deeds are registered. It is beyond doubt that though the deeds are styled as settlement deeds, the same are in effect gift deeds executed in favour of the appellants. If that be so, provisions of Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 apply.

22. When the facts intertwined in the present appeals are closely scrutinized, the counterclaim plaintiff/appellant in RSA No.108/2013 cannot have any right title and interest over the property in the normal course of inheritance. But, since deceased Nesamony had no issues in the first marriage, the defendant becomes the only natural legal heir. But, then, it is indisputable that Nesamony married Dasamma, who had already four children in the 2025:KER:74353 RSA Nos.1337/12 & 108/13 wedlock with Simson. Therefore, necessarily, the position of the deceased Nesamony is that of a stepfather, who is stated to have executed the settlement deeds in favour of the plaintiffs. The defendant/counterclaim plaintiff cannot contend that she has the right title and interest over the plaint schedule property because of the derivation of title through other sources. In fact, the counterclaim plaintiff also claims title under late Nesamony as a legal heir in terms of the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Therefore, when an intestate succession is claimed by the plaintiffs relying on testamentary disposition of the property through settlement deeds, without seeking to set aside or for cancellation of the documents, the counterclaim plaintiff cannot successfully sustain the plea of declaration of title. No consequences will follow from the prayer seeking recovery of possession because the plea for recovery of possession can be sustained only on finding that the counterclaim plaintiff has got title over the plaint schedule property consequent to a finding on the validity of the settlement deeds. Therefore, the reliance placed on by the learned counsel for the appellant in RSA No.108/2013 that the larger period of limitation under Article 65 of the Limitation Act is to be applied, is untenable.

24. In the light of what is discussed above, this Court answers the third substantial question of law in favour of the appellants/plaintiffs and holds that since no challenge was raised against settlement deeds within the prescribed time provided under the law, the title of the plaintiffs under the dispositions is unimpeachable.

25. Now, coming to the question regarding the validity of the settlement deeds, the trial court proceeded on an assumption that the settlement deeds executed in favour of the appellants/plaintiffs were invalid 2025:KER:74353 RSA Nos.1337/12 & 108/13 since there was no proper attestation. The primary reason for holding it so was that the attesters had affixed their signatures prior to the executor affixing his signature.