Madras High Court
V. Lakshmi vs Baby Ammal on 5 October, 2021
CMA.No.2618 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 05.10.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE
C.M.A.No. 2618 of 2019 &
CMP.No.12700 of 2019
1. V. Lakshmi
2. K. Shakila
3. L. Sumathi ... Appellants
Vs.
1. Baby Ammal
2. R. Sasidevi
3. U. Devaki ...Respondents
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Order 41 Rule 1 of Civil
Procedure Code 1908 against the Judgment and decreetal order dated
30.10.2018 made in A.S. No.227 of 2012 on the file of the Vth Addl City
Civil Court at Chennai reserving the Judgment and decreetal order dated
07.09.2011 made in O.S. No.3067 of 2009 on the file of the I Assistant
City Civil Court at Chennai
For Appellants : Mr. S. Rajesh
For Respondents : Mr. M.S. Palaniswamy
for R1
Mr. K.V. Sundararajan
for R2 & R3.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/7
CMA.No.2618 of 2019
JUDGMENT
This appeal has been filed challenging the common judgment and
decree dated 30.10.2018 passed by the V Additional City Civil Court,
Chennai in A.S. Nos.115 of 2012 and 227 of 2012, wherein, the learned
V Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai has remanded the matters
to the Trial Court for fresh consideration by giving the following reasons
:
a) the first respondent (first defendant) has executed two
unconditional settlement deeds in favour of her two sons on
23.12.2002. Under the said settlement deeds, the first
respondent has not reserved any right of revocation of the
settlement deeds while executing the same.
b) when the settlement deed is executed unconditionally
in favour of any person without reserving any right of
revocation, the said settlement deed cannot be revoked by the
settlor at her own will. The only option left to the settlor is to
approach the Court for declaration, if any fraud has been played
on her to execute the settlement deed. The first respondent /
first defendant has settled the property in favour of her two sons
vide two registered settlement deeds which were subsequently
cancelled by the first respondent / first defendant on 16.04.2003
by unilateral cancellation deeds and settled the properties in
favour of her three daughters and also executed a Will in favour
of her two sons. Subsequently, the first respondent / first
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMA.No.2618 of 2019
defendant cancelled the settlement deeds executed in favour of
her daughters on 05.12.2008 and thereafter executed two sale
deeds in favour of the respondents 2 and 3 / defendants 2 and 3,
who are the daughter-in-laws of the first respondent / first
defendant. The said sale deeds executed by the first respondent
/ first defendant in favour of her daughter-in-laws viz., 2nd and
3rd respondents / 2nd and 3rd defendants is the subject matter of
the suit O.S. No.3067 of 2009, wherein, the appellants /
plaintiffs have sought for declaration that the said sale deeds
are null and void and have also sought for an injunction. After
executing the unregistered settlement deeds in favour of her
sons on 23.12.2002, without reserving the right of revocation,
the first respondent / first defendant has no right or title to deal
with the property.
c) When the validity of unilateral cancellation deeds
executed by the first respondent / first defendant cancelling the
settlement deeds in favour of her sons itself is in question, the
first respondent / first defendant is not entitled to create
subsequent documents based on an unilateral cancellation
deeds without any authority.
d) The Trial Court failed to frame any issues with
reference to the right of the first respondent / first defendant to
cancel the settlement deed executed by her in favour of her
sons on 23.12.2002.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMA.No.2618 of 2019
e) The Trial Court has not framed the issues regarding
non joinder of necessary parties viz., the two sons Ravikumar
and Senthilkumar in the suit. The suit cannot be decided
without deciding these additional issues.
2. Heard Mr.S.Rajesh, learned counsel for the appellants and
Mr.M.S.Palaniswamy, learned counsel for the 1st respondent and
Mr.K.V.Sundararajan, learned counsel for the 2nd and 3rd respondents.
3. This Court does not find any infirmity in the above findings of
the Lower Appellate Court in A.S. Nos.115 and 227 of 2012 as it is
based on the evidence available on record. This appeal was filed in the
year 2019 and two years have elapsed since then. No useful purpose will
be served if this appeal is adjudicated on merits at this stage. Therefore,
this Court is of the considered view that in the interest of both the parties
to the dispute, who are admittedly family members, a direction can be
issued to the Trial Court to dispose of the suit within a time frame to be
fixed by this Court.
4. The Additional issues have already been framed by the Lower
Appellate Court under the impugned judgment and decree which are as
follows :
1) Whether the unconditional settlement deeds dated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMA.No.2618 of 2019
23.12.2002 (Ex.A1 & Ex.A2) can be revoked unilaterally by
the settlor when right of revocation is not reserved by her?
2) Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of
necessary parties namely Ravikumar and Senthilkumar who
are the original settlees?
5. The Lower Appellate Court under the impugned judgment and
decree has also permitted both the parties to lead evidence afresh and has
also given a direction to the Trial Court to dispose of the suit as
expeditiously as possible.
6. For the foregoing reasons and in the interest of both the parties
to the dispute, this Court directs the Trial Court viz., the learned I
Assistant Judge, I Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai to dispose of the
suit O.S.No.3067 of 2009 after giving sufficient opportunity to both the
parties as directed by the Lower Appellate Court in its common judgment
and decree dated 30.10.2018 passed in A.S. Nos.115 and 227 of 2012,
within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMA.No.2618 of 2019
7. With the aforesaid directions, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is
disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition
is closed.
05.10.2021
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order
vsi2
To
1. The I Assistant Judge,
City Civil Court,
Chennai
2. The V Additional Judge,
City Civil Court,
Chennai
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMA.No.2618 of 2019
vsi2
CMA.No2618 of 2019
&
CMP No.12700 of 2019
05.10.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
