Madras High Court
V.B.Radhamani vs Minor Harsha on 10 August, 2021
S.A.No.570 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 10.08.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA
S.A.No.570 of 2021
and
C.M.P.No.12230 of 2021
V.B.Radhamani ...Appellant
Vs.
1.Minor Harsha
2.T.K.Sidhan ...Respondents
Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil
Procedure against the Judgment and Decree dated 30.09.2019 made in
A.S.No.9 of 2018 on the file of the learned I Additional District Judge,
Coimbatore in reversing Judgment and Decree dated 21.12.2007 made
in O.S.No.708 of 2012 on the file of the learned II Additional
Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore.
For Appellant : Mr.N.Ponraj
For Respondents : Mr.E.Prabhu
1/13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A.No.570 of 2021
JUDGMENT
The 1st defendant in a suit is the appellant before this Court. The
Second Appeal is filed challenging the Judgment and Decree in
A.S.No.9 of 2018 of the learned I Additional District Judge,
Coimbatore in and by which the Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.708
of 2012 of the learned II Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore
had been reversed.
2. The suit O.S.No.708 of 2012 was filed by the 1 st respondent
minor represented by her next friend and mother, Meenakshi. The
parties are referred to in the same litigative status as before the Trial
Court.
3. The plaintiff had filed the suit for a declaration that the
Settlement Revocation Deed dated 03.02.2012 bearing document
No.609 of 2012 executed at the Joint Registrar Office I, Coimbatore as
null and void and not binding on the plaintiff, for a permanent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A.No.570 of 2021
injunction restraining the 1st defendant from alienating or encumbering
the suit property and for a direction to deposit a rent into the Court by a
decree of mandatory injunction.
4. The plaintiff who is a minor was born on 16.02.2006 to her
mother next friend Meenakshi and B.Suresh Kumar. The 1st defendant
/ appellant herein is the mother of the said B.Suresh Kumar. The
marriage between Meenakshi and Suresh Kumar was solemnised on
06.04.2003. After the marriage they were living together as husband
and wife at Coimbatore. The 1st defendant who is the paternal grand-
mother out of love and affection had executed a registered settlement
deed on 23.05.2007 settling the suit property on the plaintiff. The
possession of the property was also handed over and revenue records
were also mutated in the name of the minor.
5. The 2nd defendant is a tenant in respect of the ground floor on a
monthly rental of Rs.20,000/-. From the date of the settlement the
plaintiff's father had been receiving the rent for and on behalf of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A.No.570 of 2021
minor for her welfare. Meanwhile, misunderstandings arose between
the minor's parents culminating in the filing of a divorce petition in
H.M.O.P.No.250 of 2012 by the father, Suresh Kumar against the
mother, Meenakshi.
6. The minor is in the care and custody of her mother. Once the
relationship between the spouses had soured the paternal grand mother
appears to have executed a Settlement Revocation Deed dated
03.02.2012 revoking the earlier settlement deed executed by her. The
plaintiff would submit that the cancellation was invalid and void since
the 1st defendant ceased to be the owner of the property on the
execution of the settlement deed dated 23.05.2007. The plaintiff now
comes to learn that the 1st defendant is attempting to alienate the suit
property. In this situation, the plaintiff has come forward with the suit.
7. The 1st defendant had filed a written statement inter alia
denying all the averments in the plaint including the factum that she
had executed the settlement deed out of love and affection in favour of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A.No.570 of 2021
her grand daughter. The 1st defendant would submit that she has
already filed a suit O.S.No.1749 of 2012 before the Principal District
Munsif, Coimbatore against the plaintiff's mother and the Coimbatore
City Municipal Corporation to protect her peaceful possession and
enjoyment by filing a suit for injunction and mandatory injunction.
8. It is the contention of the 1st defendant that the settlement deed
was never acted upon. The tenant continues to pay the rents to her.
She would further submit that the present suit has been filed only with
a view to grab the property as there is a dispute between the plaintiff's
mother and her father. Since the property was not handed over, the 1st
defendant would submit that the settlement was not given effect to.
9. The II Additional Subordinate Court, Coimbatore had framed
the following issues:
“1. 23/05/2007k; njjpapl;l thjpapd;
bgaupy; vGjg;gl;Ls;s brl;oy;bkz;l; gj;jpuk;
cz;ikahdJk; epiyf;fj;jf;fJk; jhdh>
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A.No.570 of 2021
2/ 03/02/2012k; njjpapl;l brl;oy;bkz;l;
uj;J gj;jpuk; cz;ikahdJk;. Epiyf;fj;
jf;fJk; jhdh>
3/ ,stu; thjp nfhupa[s;sgo tpsk;g[ifg;
gupfhuKk;. epue;ju cWj;Jf; fl;lisg;
gupfhuKk; thjpf;F fpilf;fj; jf;fjh>
4/ thjpf;Ff; fpilf;fj; jf;f ,ju
gupfhuk; vd;d>"
10. The plaintiff's mother had examined herself as P.W.1 and had
marked Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.5. The 1st defendant had examined herself as
D.W.1 and had marked Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.4.
11. The learned II Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore,
after sifting through the evidence, both documentary as well as oral,
dismissed the suit. The learned Judge, had held that the settlement
deed was a conditional settlement that the parents would be the
guardian of the minor. However, now the minor is in the care and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A.No.570 of 2021
custody of the mother and no application has been moved for
appointing a guardian. Therefore, the 1st defendant's contention that
since the condition of the settlement deed had been breached the 1st
defendant had rightly revoked the settlement deed.
12. The minor plaintiff through her mother had challenged the
said Judgement and Decree by filing A.S.No.9 of 2018 on the file of
the I Additional District Judge, Coimbatore. The learned Judge
allowed the appeal and set aside the Judgement and Decree of the Trial
Court. The learned Judge has relied upon the various Judgements to
show that the settlement deed once executed cannot be revoked.
13. Mr.N.Ponraj, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 1st
defendant would submit that the main condition on which the
settlement had been effected was that both the parents would be the
guardian of the minor. However, now, since the parents have parted
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A.No.570 of 2021
ways owing to their misunderstanding this condition cannot be
continued and therefore has been breached. Hence, the 1 st defendant
was well within her right to revoke the settlement deed.
14. The learned counsel would further submit that the possession
of the property continued to remain with the 1st defendant and therefore
the settlement deed had not been given effect to. He would submit that
the Trial Court has rightly dismissed the suit, whereas, the Appellate
Court has erred in error in reversing the Judgement of the Trial Court.
15. Heard the learned counsels and perused the records.
16. The settlement deed Ex.A.2 has been executed by the grand
mother in favour of her minor grand daughter who was just a year old
represented by his parents, Suresh Kumar and Meenakshi. The recitals
of the settlement deed would indicate that the settlement deed had been
effected on account of the love and affection that the paternal grand
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A.No.570 of 2021
mother had for her grand daughter and in order to make provisions for
her further maintenance and education. The recitals would further read
that the possession of the property has been handed over to the settlee
on the very same day. The settlor, namely, the 1st defendant had also
executed all applications for mutating the revenue records in the name
of the settlee.
17. The 1st defendant justifies the revocation stating that the
settlement was a conditional settlement and since the condition has
been breached she had the authority to cancel the settlement deed. For
this purpose the 1st defendant would rely on the following recital in the
settlement deed:
“,d;W Kjy; nkw;go FHe;ijapd;
bgw;nwhuhd vd; kfd; Rnuc&;Fkhu; kw;Wk;
mtuJ kidtp kPdhl;rp Mfpatu;fs; nkw;go
FHe;ijf;F fhu;oadhft[k; rk;urc&iz
fh;j;jhf;fshft[k; ,Ue;J FHe;ijiaa[k;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A.No.570 of 2021
kw;Wk; ,e;j brhj;ija[k; ghJfhj;J
guhkjpj;J tu ntz;oaJ/”
However, the 1st defendant has canceled the settlement deed not on the
ground that the parents of the minor have parted way but on account of
the fact that she wanted to make some other arrangement in respect of
the property. She would also state in the deed, that possession
continued to remain with her and therefore she was canceling the deed.
The plaintiff has filed documents to show that the revenue records had
been mutated in the name of the minor and has also produced
documents showing payment of the tax. Therefore, it is clear that the
settlement deed had been given effect to.
18. Therefore, the contention of the 1st defendant that she
continued to be in possession of the property and consequently has the
right to revoke the same is totally misconceived. That apart, on the
date when the cancellation had taken place the 1st defendant was no
longer a person having a right to the property. The settlement deed had
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A.No.570 of 2021
been executed in the year 2007 and revenue records had been mutated
thereafter.
19. In her oral evidence, the 1st defendant has stated that she had
executed the cancellation deed only on account of the fact that her
daughter-in-law had got the house tax and water tax transferred in the
name of the minor. Therefore, the 1st defendant has taken different
stands for effecting the cancellation. Further, the settlement deed
having been given effect to the 1st defendant has no right to cancel the
same.
20. The Appellate Court has rightly allowed the appeal and
reversed the Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court. The 1 st defendant
/appellant has not made out any question of law much less a substantial
question of law warranting the interference of this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A.No.570 of 2021
In fine, the Second Appeal is dismissed. Consequently,
connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is also closed. No costs.
10.08.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
kan/mps
To
1.The I Additional District Judge,
Coimbatore.
2.The II Additional Subordinate Judge,
Coimbatore.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A.No.570 of 2021
P.T. ASHA, J,
kan
S.A.No.570 of 2021
and
C.M.P.No.12230 of 2021
10.08.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
