Madras High Court
Deivasugam vs Kaliammal on 26 June, 2025
Author: T.V. Thamilselvi
Bench: T.V. Thamilselvi
S.A.Nos.1190 and 1191 of 2006 and 921 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 26.06.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE T.V. THAMILSELVI
S.A.Nos.1190 and 1191 of 2006 and 921 of 2016
S.A. No.1190 of 2006:
1.Deivasugam
2.S.Saravanan ...Appellants/Appellants/Plaintiffs
Vs.
1.Kaliammal
2.K.Sampoornam
3.M.Sivasukumar ...Respondents/Respondents/Respondents
S.A. No.1191 of 2006:
1.Deivasugam
2.S.Saravanan ...Appellants/3rd and 4th Respondents
/3rd and 4th Defendants
Vs.
1.Kaliammal ...Respondent/Appellant/Plaintiff
2.S.Kolanda Gounder (died) ...Respondent/1st Respondent/1st Defendant
3.K.Sundararajan ...Respondent/2nd Respondent/2nd Defendant
4.K.Sampoornam
5.K.Pushpa
6.N.Jayam
7.Deepalakshmi
8.Nizamchandar ... Respondents
1/19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/07/2025 04:09:03 pm )
S.A.Nos.1190 and 1191 of 2006 and 921 of 2016
(Respondents 4 to 8 brought on record as the legal representatives of the
dceased 2nd repsondent vide orders of this Court dated 16.07.2014 made in
M.P.Nos.1 to 3 of 2011 in S.A.Nos.1191 of 2006)
S.A.No.921 of 2016:
Deivasugam ...Appellant/Appellant/Plaintiff
Vs.
1.The Superintending Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Administrative Office
at Udayapatti Bye-pass Road,
Salem – 636 006.
2.The Executive Engineer,
Operation & Maintenance (West)
75/80, Subramaniya Nagar,
2nd Gate,
Suramangalam,
Salem – 636 005.
3.The Assistant Engineer,
Operation & Maintenance (West)
75/80, Sasnnathi Street,
Subramaniya Nagar,
2nd Gate,
Suramangalam,
Salem – 636 005. ...Respondents 1 to 3/Defendants 1 to 3
4.Kaliammal ...4th Respondent
...Respondents
Prayer in S.A.No.1190 of 2006: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of
2/19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/07/2025 04:09:03 pm )
S.A.Nos.1190 and 1191 of 2006 and 921 of 2016
the Civil Procedure Code against the Judgment and Decree dated 23.03.2006
made in A.S.No.7 of 2004 on the file of the learned I Additional District Judge,
Salem, confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 20.08.2003 made in
O.S.No.847 of 2001 on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif, Salem.
Prayer in S.A.No.1191 of 2006: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of
the Civil Procedure Code against the Judgment and Decree dated 23.03.2006
made in A.S.No.27 of 2004 on the file of the learned I Additional District
Judge, Salem, reversing the Judgment and Decree dated 20.08.2003 made in
O.S.No.561 of 2000 on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif, Salem.
Prayer in S.A.No.921 of 2016: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of
the Civil Procedure Code against the Judgment and Decree dated 25.03.2015
made in A.S.No.162 of 2010 on the file of the learned Principal Subordinate
Judge, Salem, confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 05.02.2010 made in
O.S.No.1414 of 2007 on the file of the learned I Additional District Munsif,
Salem.
S.A. No.1190 of 2006:
For Appellants : Mr.Mr.R.Mohandoss
for M/s.Swaminathan Law Associates
For Respondents : Mr.Mr.D.Shivakumaran,
for R1 and R4
R2 -died
R3 and R5 to R8 – No appearance
S.A. No.1191 of 2006:
3/19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/07/2025 04:09:03 pm )
S.A.Nos.1190 and 1191 of 2006 and 921 of 2016
For Appellants : Mr.Mr.R.Mohandoss
for M/s.Swaminathan Law Associates
For Respondents : Mr.Mr.D.Shivakumaran,
for R1 to R3
S.A. No.921 of 2016:
For Appellants : Mr.Mr.R.Mohandoss
for M/s.Swaminathan Law Associates
For Respondents : Ms.J.Hemalatha Gajapathy
for R1 to R3
Mr.Mr.D.Shivakumaran,
for R4
COMMON JUDGMENT
The appellants herein who are the defendants 3 and 4 in O.S.No.561 of
2000 on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif, Salem and the
plaintiffs in the suit in O.S.No.847 of 2001 on the file of the learned Principal
District Munsif, Salem and also the 1st plaintiff in O.S.No.1414 of 2007 on the
file of the learned I Additional District Munsif, Salem.
2.Challenging the findings rendered by the First Appellate Court in
A.S.Nos.7 and 27 of 2004 on the file of the learned I Additional District Judge,
Salem and A.S.No.162 of 2010 on the file of the learned Principal Subordinate
Judge, Salem, the appellants preferred these Second Appeals.
3.For the sake of convenience, the parties are denoted as addressed in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/07/2025 04:09:03 pm )
S.A.Nos.1190 and 1191 of 2006 and 921 of 2016
earlier suit in O.S.No.561 of 2000 on the file of the learned Principal District
Munsif, Salem.
4.The brief fact of the case in the suit in O.S.No.561 of 2000 is that the
plaintiff Kaliammal is the wife of the 1st defendant Kolanda Gounder. The 2nd
defendant is their son and the defendants 3 and 4 are wife and son of the 2nd
defendant. The case of the plaintiff/Kaliammal is that the suit property as
described in the Plaint schedule shown as two items situate at Bodinaickenpatti
Village, Salem Taluk absolutely belong to her husband/1st defendant by way of
purchase through a Sale Deed dated 12.03.1973, as a vacant site. Thereafter, he
constructed a small house in a portion of property for which the plaintiff also
made contributions and thereafter, the plaintiff and her husband/1st defendant
lived happily in that premises. After that, their son/2nd defendant married the 3rd
defendant and they had a separate residence at Cauvery Nagar, Sooramangalam,
Salem. Out of love and affection, the 1st defendant executed a Settlement Deed
in her favour on 07.01.1994 with respect to a portion of suit property and the
remaining portion of the suit property was also given to her under a Settlement
Deed dated 06.11.1995. Eversince, the plaintiff took possession of both the
properties and the said Settlement Deed was acted upon. While so, the
defendants 2 to 4 changed the minds of her husband and took him to their house
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/07/2025 04:09:03 pm )
S.A.Nos.1190 and 1191 of 2006 and 921 of 2016
at Cauvery Nagar. Subsequently, in the month of August 2000, the 2nd
defendant along with his henchmen caused interference. Therefore, she come
forward with the suit for the relief of permanent injunction.
5.The 1st defendant/husband of the plaintiff filed his Written Statement
and denied the fact that the plaintiff contributed funds to put up construction in
the suit properties. He would submit that out of his own earnings, he purchased
the property in the year 1973 and out of his own income, he constructed first
and second floors. Further, he has not executed any Settlement Deed out of his
own will in favour of the plaintiff in the year 1995. During the said period, he
was suffered with Cardiac problem and put in continuous medical problems.
Taking advantage of his illness and innocence, the plaintiff got signatures from
him through coercion and threat in order to grab the properties. After recovery,
immediately he cancelled the Settlement Deed. In fact, the Settlement Deed
was executed during the pendency of the suit for Partition filed by their sons in
respect of the suit property with other properties.. He has not handed over the
possession to the plaintiff but she took away title deeds in his absence. It is also
false to state that now he colluded with the defendants 2 to 4. The plaintiff is
living in a separate house and got sufficient money by way of Deposits in the
Bank. It is false to say that the defendants along with their henchmen caused
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/07/2025 04:09:03 pm )
S.A.Nos.1190 and 1191 of 2006 and 921 of 2016
interference. Hence, the 1st defendant prayed to dismiss the suit as no merit.
6.The defendants 2 to 5 filed their Written Statement stating that the
plaintiff was living with her another daughter, Sampoornam and her grandson
Sivakumar at D.No.59, II Street, Dharma Nagar, Salem. They would further
submit that with connivance of another daughter Sampoornam and her
grandson, the plaintiff with a malafide intention in order to grab the properties
from the 1st defendant forged those Settlement Deeds. Further, they would
contend that they purchased the property from the 1st defendant for a valid
consideration on 07.05.1999. Thereafter, they raised a loan from the Co-
operative Urban Bank in the capacity of owner. The plaintiff was not in
possession of property at any point of time. Further, there is no necessity for
the 1st defendant to execute the Settlement Deed in respect of the entire
properties in favour of the plaintiff. The 1st defendant was suffered with
Cardiac problem and for the past fifteen years, he was under treatment. The
plaintiff came forward with a false claim stating that she had already sufficient
means to maintain herself. The members of the family have also filed other
suits in O.S.No.850 of 1992 and O.S.No.409 of 1995 pending before the
learned Subordinate Judge, Salem. There is no trespass as alleged by the
plaintiff in the suit property and there is no cause of action arose. Hence, they
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/07/2025 04:09:03 pm )
S.A.Nos.1190 and 1191 of 2006 and 921 of 2016
prayed for dismissal of the suits.
7.Before the Trial Court, both the parties adduced evidence. On the side
of the plaintiff, P.W.1 and P.W.2 were examined and the documents Ex.A1 to
Ex.A30 were marked. On the side of defendants, D.W.1 was examined and the
documents Ex.B1 to Ex.B12 were marked. The Trial Judge framed two issues.
8.On considering the evidence, the Trial Judge has held that by relying
the title deed Ex.A1, Ex.A2 and Ex.A3 were executed by the 1st defendant, but
during the pendency of the suit in O.S.No.850 of 1992 filed for partition, those
two Settlement Deeds executed is sham and nominal by accepting the
arguments advanced on the side of the defendants. Further, the Trial Judge held
that in respect of possession of the property, the plaintiff has not produced any
Patta nor she proved that she was residing in the suit property. Further, some
of the Receipts, like, Water Tax, Identity Card, which shows that she was
residing at Dharma Nagar and not in the suit property. The Trial Judge also
held that the Settlement Deeds were already cancelled and 1st defendant who is
the original owner sold the properties to his daughter-in-law/3rd defendant
through two Sale Deeds marked as Ex.B2 and Ex.B.3. Thereafter, the
properties were mortgaged and mutation of records have also been effected.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/07/2025 04:09:03 pm )
S.A.Nos.1190 and 1191 of 2006 and 921 of 2016
Furthermore, the plaintiff and her husband subsequently entered into a Sale
Agreement, which shows that the Settlement Deeds were not acted upon and it
is only a sham and nominal document. Those two Settlement Deeds were
cancelled and the 1st defendant sold the property to the defendants 3 and 4 and
thereafter, they are in possession and enjoyment of the suit property.
Accordingly, the suit was dismissed. Consequently, the suit filed by the
defendants 3 and 4 in O.S.No.847 of 2001 filed for permanent injunction was
allowed holding that they were in possession of property.
9.The plaintiff Kaliammal preferred an appeal in A.S.No.27 of 2004
challenging the Decree and Judgment arising out of the findings rendered in
O.S.No.561 of 2000 and the defendants 3 and 4 preferred another appeal in
A.S.No.7 of 2004 arising out of the findings rendered in O.S.No.847 of 2001.
Both the appeals were jointly heard and separate Judgments were passed by the
First Appellate Judge. The First Appellate Judge confirmed the findings
rendered by the Trial Court in O.S.No.847 of 2001 and reversed the findings of
the Trial Court in O.S.No.561 of 2000.
10.Aggrieved over the Judgment and Decree passed by the First
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/07/2025 04:09:03 pm )
S.A.Nos.1190 and 1191 of 2006 and 921 of 2016
Appellate Court, the defendants 3 and 4 have filed the above Second Appeals.
11.On 27.11.2006, at the time of admission in S.A.Nos.1190 of 1191 of
2006, this Court had framed the following Substantial Questions of Law:
“(1)Whether the Lower Appellate Court having held that
“an inference as to plaintiffs possession can be drawn” was
correct and justified in dismissing the suit holding that
defendants are in possession?
(2)In a suit for bare injunction the only question to be
considered is as to who is in possession on the date of the suit,
that being so, are the Courts below correct and justified in
dismissing the suit even without giving a categorical finding as
to who was in possession on the date of the suit?”
12.It is an undisputed fact that the suit properties originally belonged to
the 1st defendant Kolanda Gounder, husband of the plaintiff Kaliammal by way
of purchase in the year 1973. It is the contention of the said Kaliammal that her
husband out of love and affection settled the suit properties in her favour
through two Settlement Deeds of the year 1994 and 1995 and those documents
were marked as Ex.A.2 and Ex.A.3. From the date of the said Settlement, the
plaintiff claimed that she is in absolute possession and enjoyment of the suit
properties. During 2000, her husband and her son and daughter-in-law caused
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/07/2025 04:09:03 pm )
S.A.Nos.1190 and 1191 of 2006 and 921 of 2016
interference. Hence, they came forward with the suit in O.S.No.561 of 2000 for
permanent injunction.
13.All the defendants disputed the plaintiffs' right and title over the suit
property, more particularly, her husband/1st defendant contended that the
alleged Settlement Deed is sham and nominal. During the pendency of the suits
in O.S.No.850 of 1992 and OS.No.409 of 1995, those two Settlement Deeds
were executed. That apart, he was suffering with Cardiac problem and took
treatment. At that time, the defendants manipulated through coercion and threat
and obtained signatures in the documents from him. Thereafter, he cancelled
the two Settlement Deeds and sold the properties to his daughter-in-law and
grandson, through two separate Sale Deeds marked as Ex.P.2 an Ex.P.3.
14.The learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff Kaliammal would
argue that immediately the suit Settlement Deeds were acted upon and the
plaintiff was in possession of the properties. Thereafter, the 1st defendant
cancelled the documents unilaterally for which he has no right to cancel the
documents nor any condition was imposed while executing the said Settlement
Deeds. Therefore, under Sections 123 and 127 of the Transfer of Property Act,
once the Settlement Deed is executed the settlor has no right and title to cancel
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/07/2025 04:09:03 pm )
S.A.Nos.1190 and 1191 of 2006 and 921 of 2016
the documents.
15.On a perusal of the Settlement Deeds, it was executed by Kolanda
Gounder in favour of his wife Kaliammal. On 07.01.1994 and on 06.11.1995,
the entire documents clearly denotes that out of love and affection, the 1st
defendant executed the documents with the recitals in favour of the plaintiff
Kaliammal. Therefore, he has no right to cancel the documents. Even if he
cancelled the documents it would not bind her. Further, the settlor has no right
to cancel the documents nor he imposed any condition out of love and affection.
Those two documents have been executed in favour of his wife. Even as per the
defence, the 1st defendant contended that at the time of Cardiac problem, he was
continuously taking treatment for more than three years and at that time through
coercion and threat, the signatures have been obtained in the documents from
him, but those Settlement Deeds have been executed in 1994 and 1995. If at all
those documents have been obtained under coercion and threat he ought to have
cancelled the documents immediately. But, no such steps have been taken. In
the year 1999, he executed the documents in favour of his son and daughter-in-
law. Furthermore, there was no medical proof that he was suffering from illness
and prolonged treatment taken.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/07/2025 04:09:03 pm )
S.A.Nos.1190 and 1191 of 2006 and 921 of 2016
16.On the contra, the plaintiff proved that the Settlement Deeds were
acted upon and she took possession of the properties by producing Tax
Receipts, more particularly, Ex.P.20 and Ex.P21 – Voters list stand in the name
of the plaintiff for the suit properties at D.No.5/2, I Street, Dharma Nagar,
Sooramangalam, Salem. Also, Ex.P.26 – Telephone Bills stand in the name of
Siva Kumar. Besides Ex.P.27 – Voters Identity Card stands in the name of her
grandson born through another daughter Sampoornam and Ex.P.28 - Voters
Identity Card stands in the name of her daughter Sampoornam. Further, the
Electricity consumption charges and all the documents proves that the plaintiff
was in possession of the property after the said Settlement Deeds as absolute
owner.
17.Though the defendants contended that they were in possession, the
documents Ex.B.5 to Ex.B.7 - Joint Patta, Chitta and Kist Receipts relied by the
defendants came into force after Ex.B.2 and ExB.3 - Sale Deeds have been
executed. Further, the House Tax Receipts stand in the name of the 3rd
defendant which has been marked as Ex.B.9 and Ex.B.10 and all the documents
are after the Sale Deed executed. Though the two Settlement Deeds Ex.P.24
and Ex.P.25 were cancelled in the year 1997 by the 1st defendant Kolanda
Gounder, the suit property was in possession of the plaintiff, was proved. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/07/2025 04:09:03 pm )
S.A.Nos.1190 and 1191 of 2006 and 921 of 2016
beneficiary Kaliammal proved that the Settlement Deeds were acted upon and
she is in possession of the property and the same was rightly appreciated by the
First Appellate Court though the Trial Court failed to appreciate such legal
proposition properly. But, the Trial Court gave much importance to the alleged
Ex.B1 – Sale Agreement dated 17.12.1997 said to be entered between her
husband Kolanda Gounder and two others. Thereafter, the progress of the said
agreement has not been established by the defendants. Therefore, Ex.B.1 – Sale
Agreement alone is not sufficient to conclude that Kaliammal was not enjoyed
the property as absolute owner.
18.In support of their contentions, the learned counsel for the
respondent/plaintiff relied the following Authorities:
(1)K.A. Shanmugam & others Vs. Tamilarasi & others [2012 (1)
CurCC 561]
“Mere handing over of documents by donee is sufficient
to prove acceptance.”
(2)Thota Ganga Laxmi & Another Vs. Government of Andhra
Pradesh & Others [2010 (15) SCC 207]
“When the deed of cancellation is void, the cancellation
and its registration are Non Est in Law, the same can be
ignored altogether.”
As such, the alleged Sale Deed in favour of Deivasugam and Saravanan are also
non-est in Law. So, without any legal right, they cannot at all maintain a suit
for bare injunction, that too against the lawful owner.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/07/2025 04:09:03 pm )
S.A.Nos.1190 and 1191 of 2006 and 921 of 2016
(3)S. Ganesan Vs. Bharathi Rajan [2009 (5) CTC 558]
“When the registered Settlement Deed is irrevocable, no
right vests with the Settlor to unilaterally cancel the same and
such cancellation is void. (Para 7)”
(4)D.V.Loganathan Vs. The Sub-Registrar, Office of the Sub-
Registrar, Pallavaram & another [2014 (3) CTC 113]
“Unilateral Cancellation of an irrevocable Settlement
Deed is against public policy. The Settlor ought to have
approached the Civil Court to have the Settlement Deed set
aside.
(5)Asokan Vs. Lakshmikutty [2007 13 SCC 210]
“Once the original deed of gift is handed over to the
donee, the transfer is complete. (Para 25)”
(6)State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Sabal Singh and others [2019 (10)
SCC 595]
“Concurrent findings of the Trial Court and First
Appellate Court based on proper appreciation cannot be
interfered with by High court.”
To support their contentions, the citations relied by the learned counsel for the
respondent/plaintiff are applicable to the facts of these cases.
19.Therefore, the findings rendered by the First Appellate Court need no
interference. Once the Settlement Deed was acted upon, it is irrevocable and
no right vests with the Settlor to cancel Ex.A2 and Ex.A.3 - Settlement Deeds.
Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to claim only permanent injunction without
sought for any declaration relief as such is maintainable. Accordingly, the
Substantial Question of Law 2 is answered.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/07/2025 04:09:03 pm )
S.A.Nos.1190 and 1191 of 2006 and 921 of 2016
20.In respect of a portion of the property as discussed above, the plaintiff
proved her possession through the relevant documents. Therefore, the First
Appellate Court has rightly observed that the 1st defendant is not in possession
of the property which needs no interference. The Substantial Question of Law 1
is answered accordingly.
21.In S.A.No.1190 of 2006, the suit in O.S.No.847 of 2001 filed by the
alleged purchasers, namely, the daughter-in-law and the grandson of the
plaintiff Kaliammal prayed for bare injunction against the plaintiff Kaliammal,
as such, is not maintainable, for the reason that in view of the findings rendered
in the earlier suit O.S.No.561 of 2000 on the file of the learned Principal District
Munsif, Salem, she is the absolute owner of the property and the alleged
subsequent purchase would not bind her. So also, the plaintiff Kaliammal has
also established that she is in possession of the property. Therefore, the relief
sought for by the alleged purchasers, namely, Deivasugam and S.Saravanan, is
not sustainable. To that effect, the findings rendered by the First Appellate
Court needs no interference.
Accordingly, S.A.Nos.1190 and 921 of 2016 are dismissed as no merit.
The findings render by the First Appellate Court is confirmed. Accordingly, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/07/2025 04:09:03 pm )
S.A.Nos.1190 and 1191 of 2006 and 921 of 2016
suit in O.S.No.561 of 2000 filed by the plaintiff Kaliammal is decreed as prayed
for. The suit in O.S.No.1414 of 2007 filed by Deivasugam and the suit in
O.S.No.847 of 2001 filed by Deivasugam and S.Saravanan are dismissed as no
merit. There shall be no order as to costs.
26.06.2025
Speaking / Non Speaking order
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
Index :Yes/No
mps
To
1.The I Additional District Judge,
Salem.
2.The Principal Subordinate Judge,
Salem.
3.The Principal District Munsif,
Salem.
4.The I Additional District Munsif,
Salem.
3.The Section Officer,
VR Section,
Madras High Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/07/2025 04:09:03 pm )
S.A.Nos.1190 and 1191 of 2006 and 921 of 2016
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/07/2025 04:09:03 pm )
S.A.Nos.1190 and 1191 of 2006 and 921 of 2016
T.V.THAMAILSELVI, J.
mps
S.A.Nos.1190 and 1191 of 2006
and 921 of 2016
26.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/07/2025 04:09:03 pm )
