Iyyaswamy Pandian vs Revathi
2022 Latest Caselaw 3970 Mad

                                                                              A.S.(MD)No.3 of 2020

                          BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                                DATED : 02.03.2022

                                                       CORAM:

                                  THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA

                                              A.S.(MD)No.3 of 2020


                Iyyaswamy Pandian                                   Appellant/Plaintiff
                                                         Vs.

                1.Revathi
                2.Subathi                                           Respondents/Claimants

                PRAYER: Appeal Suit is filed under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code to
                set aside the judgment and decree, dated 23.10.2018 passed in O.S.No.84 of
                2017, on the file of the Principal District Judge, Kanyakumari District at
                Nagercoil.
                                       For Appellant       : Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai

                                       For Respondents     : Mr.S.Rajasekar


                                               JUDGMENT

This Appeal Suit has been preferred challenging the judgment of the learned

Principal District Judge, Kanyakumari, made in O.S.No.84 of 2017, dated

23.10.2018.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.(MD)No.3 of 2020

2.The appellant is the plaintiff. The appellant has filed the suit for the relief of

declaration that the suit property belongs to him by virtue of a family

arrangement, dated 12.02.2017. The plaintiff and the defendants are the brother

and sisters. The case of the plaintiff is that the suit properties and other

properties were originally owned by the father of the plaintiff; he executed a

settlement deed in favour of the plaintiff, defendants and their another brother

and settled the properties in their favour; In the said settlement deed, the suit

properties have been allotted under 'C' and 'D' schedule properties; 'C' schedule

properties were allotted to the first defendant and the 'D' schedule properties

were allotted to the second defendant respectively; the plaintiff's brother

Kannan has filed a Civil suit for partition in O.S.No.117 of 2015, before the

Principal District Court, Kanyakumari and later the suit was rejected on

09.09.2016, as not maintainable.

3.Subsequently, the defendants 1 & 2 had entered into a family arrangement

with the plaintiff on 02.12.2017 in the presence of witnesses namely, Vijayan

and Aravind Kumar and other relatives; in the said settlement deed, the

defendants 1 & 2 agreed to hand over the suit properties allotted to them in the

earlier settlement deed, in favour of the plaintiff; however, the family

arrangement was an oral agreement; because of the close relationship between

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.(MD)No.3 of 2020

the parties, no written documents have been executed; the plaintiff has to be

declared that he is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule properties. In the

said suit, the defendants remained exparte; however, the learned trial judge

dismissed the suit by stating that there cannot be any oral family arrangement

and even if there is any such family arrangement, Muchalika to that effect ought

to have been executed, since the transfer of immovable properties is alleged to

have been done orally; the plaintiff was non-suited to get the relief as prayed

for by him; aggrieved over the same, the plaintiff has preferred this Appeal Suit.

4.The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned trial Judge

has not considered the fact that the defendants had relinquished their rights in

respect of the suit properties in favour of the plaintiff; according to the learned

counsel for the appellant despite the defendants remained exparte, the suit was

dismissed erroneously.

5. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that there cannot be any

oral relinquishment of immovable properties; since the plaintiff has not

produced any registered document in order to show the above transaction, the

suit itself is not maintainable.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.(MD)No.3 of 2020

6.On the basis of the above submissions, this Court feels that the short point for

consideration in this appeal is

1. Whether the appeal suit is maintainable or not?

7. The relationship between the plaintiff and the defendants is not disputed. The

suit properties were originally belonged to the father of the respective parties.

The plaintiff's father executed a settlement Deed, dated 06.05.2014, in favour of

his children, through which, some definite properties have been settled in

favour of each of his children. Even thereafter, one of the brothers had filed the

suit before the Civil Court for partition and that was rejected as not

maintainable. The plaintiff himself has admitted that the suit properties were

settled in favour of the defendants 1 & 2 by their father. It is claimed by the

appellant that subsequent to the said settlement deed, there was family

arrangement, in which, the defendants had agreed to relinquish their interest in

the said properties in favour of the plaintiff. Even though family arrangements

can be made orally, in case, if it involves transfer of properties, in favour of the

members of the family, that should be reduced into writing. Such family

arrangements can be done only if the properties have been enjoyed as joint

family properties.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.(MD)No.3 of 2020

8. In the case on hand, it is the definite contention of the plaintiff that his father

had executed a settlement deed in favour of his children, in which, he had

settled separate and distinct properties to each of his children. So, as against the

respective properties settled in favour of each of the settlees, the respective

properties would be their self acquired properties. Under such circumstances,

there could not have been any family arrangement, as it is so held for the

convenient enjoyment of the joint family properties. It is the definite case of the

plaintiff' that the defendants had relinquished their interest in the suit properties

in his favour. The said conveyance ought to have been executed by way of a

registered release deed. Since no transfer of immovable properties can be

effected orally without a registered deed of conveyance, it is the right of the

trial judge to non-suit the plaintiff for the reliefs prayed by him. And thus the

point is answered against the appellant

9.In view of the foregoing discussions, I do not find any factual or legal

infirmity in the judgment of the trial Court and hence the same does not warrant

any interference. Accordingly, this Appeal Suit is dismissed. No costs.

02.03.2022 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No vrn

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.(MD)No.3 of 2020

To

1.The Principal District Judge, Kanyakumari District

2.The Record Keeper, Vernacular Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.(MD)No.3 of 2020

R.N.MANJULA, J.,

vrn

JUDGMENT MADE IN A.S.(MD)No.3 of 2020

02.03.2022

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis