Madras High Court
V.S.Rajan @ Venkatachari ... vs Sri.Badri Narayanan on 30 June, 2023
C.S.No.546 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 30.06.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA
C.S.No.546 of 2015
V.S.Rajan @ Venkatachari Soundararajan
... Plaintiff
Vs.
1.Sri.Badri Narayanan
2.Smt.Kala Badri Narayanan ... Defendants
Prayer: Plaint filed under Order IV Rule 1 of Original Side Rules read with
Order VII Rule 1 of C.P.C., praying for the following judgment and decree
as against the defendants;
a) Declaring the Settlement Deed dated 22.02.1989 registered as
Document No.686/1989 executed by the plaintiff in favour of the 2nd
defendant is null and void.
b) Declaring the title of the plaintiff in respect of the suit property
and consequentially directing the defendants to deliver possession of the
suit property to the plaintiff.
c) to direct the defendants to pay the costs of the suit.
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.No.546 of 2015
For Plaintiff : Ms.N.Devi
For Defendants : Ms.Uma Vijayakumar
JUDGMENT
The suit has been filed seeking declaration of the Settlement Deed
dated 22.02.1989 registered as Document No.686/1989 executed by the
plaintiff in favour of the 2nd defendant is null and void and to Declare the
title of the plaintiff in respect of the suit property and consequentially direct
the defendants to deliver possession of the suit property to the plaintiff.
2. On 20.06.2023, this Court has passed the following order:
This suit has been filed by the plaintiff to declare
the registered settlement deed dated 22.02.1989 in favour of
the second defendant as null and void.
2. The plaintiff is the maternal uncle of the first
defendant and the second defendant is the wife of the first
defendant. It is seen from the earlier proceedings and the
orders passed by this Court that the plaintiff's daughter and
her husband who have been examined as D.W.2 & D.W.3,
had supported the case of the defendants.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.No.546 of 2015
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the
defendants that the daughter of the deceased plaintiff
herself has admitted the settlement deed executed by her
father in favour of the second defendant.
4. The plaintiff who was too old at the time of
filing the suit is said to have died recently. His only
daughter is also supporting the stand of the defendants.
However the learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that
the wife of the plaintiff is alive and she is residing at
Canada.
5. The learned counsel for the plaintiff asserted
that the plaintiff died. The death of the plaintiff is recorded.
However at the request of the learned counsel for the
plaintiff, to take steps if any, the matter is ordered to be
listed on 30.06.2023.
3. Today when the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned
counsel for the plaintiff submitted that she has not received any instructions
from the plaintiff's family.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.No.546 of 2015
4. The plaintiff is said to have got only one daughter who also
supports the case of the defendants.
5. The learned counsel for the defendants filed the death
certificate along with a memo to show the death of the plaintiff at Apollo
Speciality Hospital, Chennai on 26.05.2023. In such case, it is very difficult
to believe that the plaintiff's wife who is also a senior citizen and lives in
Canada would give instructions to the plaintiff's counsel.
6. The case is pending without any progress. In the absence of any
steps for the deceased plaintiff, the suit would get abated. Without any
purpose, the suit which has already got abated is kept pending on file.
Hence the suit is dismissed as abated. No costs.
30.06.2023
Index : yes / no
Internet : yes / no
gsk
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.No.546 of 2015
R.N.MANJULA,J.
gsk
C.S.No.546 of 2015
30.06.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
