Madras High Court
V.Bharathi vs V.Rajini Sujatha on 14 November, 2025
C.S.No.47 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 14.11.2025
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL
C.S.No.47 of 2022
1. V.Bharathi
2. V.Sridharan
3. V.Nalini ... Plaintiffs
Vs.
V.Rajini Sujatha ... Defendant
Prayer:
The Civil Suit filed under Order VII Rule (1) of Civil Procedure
Code r/w Order IV Rule 1 of O.S.Rules for (a) Declaration declaring that
the (i) Settlement Deed dated 25.09.2017 registered as Document
No.1098 of 2017 in the office of the Sub Registrar, Joint I, Chennai
Central and (ii) Settlement Deed dated 24.12.2020 registered as
Document No.962 of 2020 in the Office of the Sub Registrar, Joint I,
Chennai Central executed by Late V.Pramila in favour of the defendant
are void and unenforceable in law and not binding on the plaintiffs; (b)
Partition and separate possession of one fourth (1/4th) share to each
plaintiff to the plaint schedule properties by passing a preliminary
decree; (c)Permanent injunction restraining the defendant or her agent
or her henchmen or anybody claiming under her, from interfering with
the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule properties
1/34
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 01:45:04 pm )
C.S.No.47 of 2022
by the plaintiffs; (d) Permanent injunction restraining the defendant or
her agent or her henchmen or anybody claiming under her, from
alienating the plaint schedule properties; (e) Awarding the costs of the
suit and (f) Such further orders.
For Plaintiffs : Mr.S.Patrick
For Defendant : Mr.Krishna Ravindran
JUDGMENT
This Civil Suit has been filed by the plaintiffs for the reliefs of
Declaration, declaring that the (i) Settlement Deed dated 25.09.2017
registered as Document No.1098 of 2017 in the office of the Sub
Registrar, Joint I, Chennai Central and (ii) Settlement Deed dated
24.12.2020 registered as Document No.962 of 2020 in the Office of the
Sub Registrar, Joint I, Chennai Central executed by Late V.Pramila in
favour of the defendant are void and unenforceable in law and not
binding on the plaintiffs; (b) Partition and separate possession of one
fourth (1/4th) share to each plaintiff to the plaint schedule properties by
passing a preliminary decree; (c) Permanent injunction restraining the
defendant or her agent or her henchmen or anybody claiming under her,
from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint
schedule properties by the plaintiffs; (d) Permanent injunction restraining
the defendant or her agent or her henchmen or anybody claiming under
her, from alienating the plaint schedule properties.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 01:45:04 pm )
2. The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:-
(a) The plaintiffs and the defendant are the children of
Late.Venugopalan and Late V.Pramila. The plaint schedule property is a
residential flat bearing Flat No.G-4, super built up area of 422 Sq.feet in
the ground floor and a room of super built up area of 100 sq.feet in
Terrace with Car Parking shed of 400 sq.ft., in the ground floor of
Apartment, namely 'Kamala Arcade', Ganapathy Colony, Gopalapuram,
Chennai together with proportionate undivided share of land of 286
Sq.ft., out of 50% in one ground 2394 sq.feet in Plot No.10,
R.S.No.102/8, Mylapore Village, Triplicane Taluk. The said property
originally belonged to Kamalabhai Ammal through registered sale deed
dated 15.02.1947. The said Kamalabhai Ammal executed a settlement
deed dated 09.03.1972 in favour of Pramila for her life time without the
power of alienation and thereafter, absolutely in favour of her male and
female children in equal shares, in respect of the large extent of
schedule property of one ground 2392 sq.ft.
(b) The plaintiffs and the defendant are the children born to the
said Pramila and they are each entitled to 1/4th share of the property.
The mother of the plaintiffs, namely, Pramila wanted to develop the said
land and therefore, an agreement of development came to be entered
into on 04.08.1995 with one M/s Aparna Constructions for putting up
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 01:45:04 pm )
constructions consisting of nine residential flats in the said plot. The
plaintiffs and the defendant have agreed to allot four flats bearing Nos.F-
1, F-2, F-3, F-4 in the first floor to the Developer as its share, in
consideration of the construction to be put up by the Developer and also
agreed to convey proportionate undivided share of land of 50% out of
one ground 2392 sq.ft., to the Developer and they retained remaining
five residential flats bearing Nos.G-1, G-2, G.3, G-4, M-1 and a room in
the terrace of super built up area of 100 sq.feet together with remaining
50% undivided share of land.
(c) After completion of the construction of flats, the said Pramila,
plaintiffs and the defendant took possession of the flats and as agreed,
the said Pramila, plaintiffs and the defendant jointly executed sale deeds
on 04.09.1997 and 09.12.1998 in favour of the nominees of the
Developer in respect of the proportionate undivided share of land
totalling upto 50% of UDS of land in Plot No.10 for the Flat Nos.F-1, F-2,
F-3 and F-4. While so, life interest holder, mother of the plaintiffs and
defendant viz., V.Pramila, had executed a release deed on 29.08.2016
in favour of the plaintiffs and the defendant by relinquishing her right and
interest in respect of flat nos. G-1, G-2, G-3, G-4, M-1 and room in the
terrace together with proportionate 50% undivided share.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 01:45:04 pm )
(d) The plaintiffs and the defendant have jointly executed a
settlement deed dated 29.08.2016 in favour of the said Pramila in
respect of the plaint schedule properties and after the settlement deed,
the said Pramila was in absolute possession and enjoyment of the
properties. The documents executed by the said V.Pramila will be valid
only till her life time and after her death, the properties have to be
divided by the plaintiffs and defendant. The said Pramila died intestate
on 25.05.2021 leaving behind the plaintiffs and the defendant as her
legal heirs to succeed her estate. Therefore, the plaintiffs and the
defendant are equally entitled to 1/4th share of the property. After the
demise of said Pramila, the plaintiffs came to know about the settlement
deeds dated 25.09.2017 and 24.12.2020 said to have been executed by
the said Pramila in favour of the defendant.
(e) The said Pramila would not have executed the settlement
deeds in favour of defendant out of her own free will and the said
Pramila might have been misled by the defendant and her husband,
Vijayakumar, as to the character of the documents. When the alleged
settlement deeds came to be executed, the said Pramila was in a
complete control of the defendant and she was quite aged and not able
to comprehend about the content and nature of the document, viz., the
settlement deeds. The defendant was in a fiduciary capacity in getting
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 01:45:04 pm )
the documents executed in her favour and in both the documents, one of
the attestor is none other than the husband of the defendant. Therefore,
the defendant is bound to prove the validity of the settlement, in the
absence of settlement deeds, the parties are entitled to 1/4th share in
the suit property, therefore, filed the suit.
3. The brief averments of the Written Statement filed by the
defendant are as follows:-
(a) The plaintiffs and the defendant are siblings and the dispute is
over a small portion of the property absolutely owned by their late
mother, which has been settled in favour of the defendant. It is true that
the settlement deed was executed on 09.03.1972 by Kamalabhai Ammal
and as per the settlement deed, life estate was given to the said
Pramila. After the death of said Pramila, the children of Pramila are
entitled to the property, however, the said Pramila, during her life time,
had released the settled property and other properties by way of
Release Deed dated 29.08.2016 in favour of her children, i.e., parties to
the suit, viz., plaintiffs and defendant. Subsequent to the release deed,
the plaintiffs and defendant out of their own volition had executed
settlement deed dated 29.08.2016 in favour of the said Pramila with
power of alienation in respect of the suit property, therefore, the mother
of the plaintiffs, namely, Pramila was the absolute owner of the property
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 01:45:04 pm )
and she had been exclusively in possession and enjoyment of the
property.
(b) After the execution of the settlement deed by the plaintiffs and
defendant, the plaintiffs cannot raise any question with respect of the
alienation made by the said Pramila. The said Pramila choose to stay
with the defendant and with love and affection, the said Pramila
executed settlement deed dated 25.09.2017 settling the Flat G4 in
favour of the defendant and had executed another settlement deed on
24.12.2020 settling 100 sq.ft., room of superstructure in the terrace
along with car parking with shed having an area of 400 sq.ft., to the
defendant with the absolute ownership rights with the power to alienate.
Thereafter, the mother of the defendant died on 25.05.2021, due to
Covid – 19 infection. The said settlement deeds dated 25.09.2017 and
24.12.2020 are valid instruments and cannot be declared as void merely
because the plaintiffs sought for the reliefs.
(c) The schedule mentioned properties have been already settled
by the plaintiffs and the defendant in favour of Late Pramila through
settlement deed dated 29.08.2016 and now, they cannot claim any rights
over the property and they are estopped from making any such claim.
The plaintiffs are setting up a false case to dispossess the defendant
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 01:45:04 pm )
from the suit schedule property and to blackmail and extract money from
the defendant. The plaintiffs have already sold and encashed all their
individual assets due to their lavish lifestyle and are now eyeing the
properties belonging to the sole defendant. Therefore, the plaintiffs are
not entitled to share of the properties and the suit is liable to be
dismissed.
4. Based on the above said pleadings and after hearing both
sides and after perusing the documents, this Court framed the following
issues on 05.09.2022:-
(i) Whether the settlement deed executed by the mother in favour
of the defendants dated 24.12.2020 and registered as Doc.No.962/2020
is a lawful document and binding on the plaintiffs?.
(ii) Whether the settlement deed has been executed in sound,
physical and mental status of mind by the mother of the defendant?
(iii) Whether there are any circumstances surrounding the
execution of the settlement deed for this Court to interfere with the same
and to grant the relief of cancellation of the settlement deed.
(iv) If the settlement deed holds, then what is the relief that can be
granted to the plaintiffs.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 01:45:04 pm )
(v) If the settlement deed is canceled, then what is the ratio of
entitlement of the plaintiffs and defendant to the suit property?
(vi) To what other reliefs?
5. In order to prove the case of the plaintiffs, P.W.1 was examined
and Exhibits, P.1 to P.9 were marked. On the side of the defendant,
D.W.1 was examined and marked Exhibit D.1.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs would submit
as follows:-
(i) Originally the suit property and other properties belonged to
one Kamalabhai Ammal by way of a sale deed dated 15.02.1947. The
said Kamalabhai Ammal executed a settlement deed dated 09.03.1972
in favour of the mother of the plaintiffs and defendant, namely, V.Pramila
for her life time interest and thereafter, the children of Pramila are
entitled to the properties. Thereafter, in order to develop the properties,
they entered into development agreement with one M/s Aparna
Constructions on 04.08.1995 and put up construction of nine residential
flats and 50% of undivided share of land. The four flats, bearing
Nos.F-1, F-2, F-3 and F-4 in the 1st floor were allotted to the builder and
five residential flats bearing G-1, G-2, G-3, G-4 and M1 and a room in
the terrace of super built up area of 100 sq.ft., together with remaining
50% undivided land was allotted to the said Pramila, and her children.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 01:45:04 pm )
(ii) After construction of the flats, the plaintiffs and the defendant
along with their mother Pramila had taken possession. Thereafter, the
plaintiffs and their mother, Pramila jointly executed sale deeds in favour
of the Developer and their nominees in the year 1997-1998. Thereafter,
the said Pramila had executed a release deed in favour of her children,
namely, the plaintiffs and defendant through a release deed dated
29.08.2016 by relinquishing her right of life estate in the property settled
to her including the suit properties. Thereafter, the plaintiffs and the
defendant had jointly executed a settlement deed in favour of the said
Pramila on 29.08.2016 in respect of the suit property, thereby the said
Pramila was in absolute possession and enjoyment of the properties.
(iii) The document executed by Pramila will be valid only till her
life time and after her death, the devolution amongst the parties to the
suit is to take place only based on the original settlement deed dated
09.03.1972. The said Pramila died intestate leaving behind the plaintiffs
and the defendant to succeed her estate. However, the plaintiffs
obtained settlement deeds dated 25.09.2017 and 24.12.2020 in respect
of the suit properties under fiduciary capacity, therefore, those
settlement deeds are not valid under law and those settlement deeds
have be declared as null and void, therefore, the plaintiffs each are
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 01:45:04 pm )
entitled to 1/4th share and the defendant is entitled to 1/4th share of the
suit properties. The plaintiffs' evidence clearly establishes that the suit
property belongs to Kamalabhai Ammal and she settled the property in
favour of Pramila and the said Pramila died intestate leaving behind the
plaintiffs and defendant and each are entitled to 1/4th it share.
Therefore, the suit has to be decreed.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the defendant would
contend as follows:-
(i) Originally, the suit property belong to Kamalabhai Ammal and
the said Kamalabhai Ammal purchased the property on 15.02.1947 and
the said Kamalabhai Ammal settled the property in favour of the mother
of the defendant and plaintiffs, namely, V.Pramila through settlement
dated dated 09.03.1972. In the said settlement deed life estate was
given to Pramila and after her death, the children of Pramila are entitled
to enjoy the properties. Thereafter, the said Pramila relinquished her life
interest and executed release deed in favour of the plaintiffs and
defendant through release deed dated 29.08.2016 and prior to that, with
the help of a developer, a construction was made in the property and
some portions were allotted to the developer and some portions were
allotted to the plaintiffs and defendant.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 01:45:04 pm )
(ii) The 1st plaintiff sold her properties to the third parties. The
said Pramila had released her life interest deed in favour of the plaintiffs
and defendant through release deed dated 29.08.2016 and after
executing the said release deed to the plaintiffs and defendant, the
children of Pramila, viz., plaintiffs and defendant had executed
settlement deed in favour of Pramila through settlement dated
29.08.2016 transferring Flat No.G-4, super built up area of 422 Sq.feet
in the ground floor and a room of super built up area of 100 sq.feet in
Terrace with Car Parking shed of 400 sq.ft., in the ground floor of
Apartment, namely 'Kamala Arcade', Ganapathy Colony, Gopalapuram,
Chennai together with proportionate undivided share of land of 286
Sq.ft., out of 50% in one ground 2394 sq.feet in Plot No.10,
R.S.No.102/8, Mylapore Village, Triplicane Taluk and the defendant is in
possession and enjoyment of the property.
(iii) Thereafter, the said Pramila executed settlement deeds in
favour of the defendant on 25.09.2017 and 24.12.2020 in respect of the
suit properties, therefore, after the execution of the said settlement
deeds, the defendant has been in possession and enjoyment of the
properties. Once the property has been settled by the plaintiffs in favour
of their mother, the plaintiffs have no any right over the properties. In
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 01:45:04 pm )
order to prove the case of the defendant, she was examined as D.W.1
and marked Ex.D.1.
(iv) D.W.1 has categorically deposed about the defendant's case
and the execution of settlement deeds have been admitted and the only
contention of the plaintiffs is that the deceased-mother might not have
been executed and due to her old age, without knowledge of the recitals,
she might have executed, but there is no evidence adduced by the
plaintiffs to prove their contention, therefore, the suit is liable to be
dismissed.
8. This Court, heard the learned counsel on both sides and
perused the entire documents placed on record.
9. At the time of framing of issues on 05.09.2022, this Court
omitted to mention about the settlement deed dated 25.09.2017 in
Document No.1098 of 2017, therefore, for better appreciation and
effective disposal of the suit, the Issues have been re-casted as
follows:-
(i) Whether the settlement deeds executed by the mother in
favour of the defendant dated 25.09.2017 registered as Document
No.1098/2017 and Settlement deed dated 24.12.2020 and registered
as Document No.962/2020 are the lawful documents and binding on
the plaintiffs?
(ii) Whether the settlement deeds had been executed in a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 01:45:04 pm )
sound, physical and mental status of mind by the mother of the
defendant?
(iii) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to partition of 1/4th
share over the suit properties?
(iv) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for declaration in
respect of the settlement deeds dated 25.09.2017 and 24.12.2020 as
null and void?
(v) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to relief of permanent
injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the
plaintiffs' peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit
properties?
(vi) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to permanent injunction
restraining the defendant from alienating the plaint schedule
properties?
(vii) To what other reliefs the parties are entitled to?
Though the issues were re-casted today at the stage of Judgment,
already issues were framed based on the pleadings and parties are
aware about the issues and adduced evidences, today no any additional
issues framed beyond the pleadings. Therefore, the available
evidences and records are sufficient to decide the case, hence
additional evidence is not required and this Court is inclined to pass
Judgment with the available evidences.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 01:45:04 pm )
10. Answers to Re-casted Issue Nos.(i), (ii) and (iv): Whether
the settlement deeds executed by the mother in favour of the defendant
dated 25.09.2017 registered as Document No.1098/2017 and
Settlement deed dated 24.12.2020 and registered as Document
No.962/2020 are the lawful documents and binding on the plaintiffs? (ii)
Whether the settlement deeds had been executed in a sound, physical
and mental status of mind by the mother of the defendant? and (iv)
Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for declaration in respect of the
settlement deeds dated 25.09.2017 and 24.12.2020 as null and void?
(i) In this case, there is no dispute that the property originally
belonged to one Kamalabhai Ammal through sale deed dated
15.02.1947 and the said Kamalabai Ammal executed a settlement deed
in favour of one V.Pramila, who is the mother of the plaintiffs and
defendant through settlement deed dated 09.03.1972. As per the
settlement deed, only life interest was given to the said Pramila, without
the power of alienation. Thereafter, the said Pramila, plaintiffs and the
defendant have entered into construction agreement with one
M/s Aparna Constructions and they constructed nine residential flats and
four residential flats in first floor along with undivided share 50% of land
was allotted to the builder, M/s Aparna Constructions and remaining
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 01:45:04 pm )
50% of undivided share of land and the residential flats in ground floor
G1, G2, G3, G4, M1 and a room in the terrace was retained by the
parties to the suit and their mother.
(ii) In the meantime, the said Pramila, during her lifetime,
executed a release deed by realising her life interest right to the
plaintiffs and defendant through a Release deed dated 29.09.2016 and
thereafter, the plaintiffs and the defendant once again executed a
settlement deed in favour of their mother, namely, Pramila, through
settlement deed dated 29.08.2016 in respect of the suit properties, the
above facts have not been disputed by the parties.
(iii) According to the plaintiffs, the deceased Pramila was under
the care and custody of the defendant and thereby she obtained
settlement deed in her favour and the same came to knowledge after the
demise of their mother, through Encumbrance Deed dated 03.09.2021.
Therefore, now the plaintiffs have filed the suit to declare that the
settlement deeds as null and void and the plaintiffs are entitled for
partition and grant of injunction not to disturb the plaintiffs possession in
the suit the property and also not to create encumbrance by the
defendant.
(iv) In order to prove the case of the plaintiffs, the 1st plaintiff was
examined as P.W.1 and marked Exhibits Ex.P.1 to P.9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 01:45:04 pm )
✂Ex.P.1 is the Certified copy of the Settlement Deed bearing
No.2137 / 1972 dated 14.11.1972.
✂Ex.P.2 is the Certified copy of the sale deed bearing No.24 of 1998
dated 12.12.1997.
✂Ex.P.3 is the Certified copy of the sale deed bearing No.25 of 1998
dated 12.12.1997.
✂Ex.P.4 is the Certified copy of the sale deed bearing no.909 of
1998 dated 29.12.1998
✂Ex.P.5 is the Certified copy of the release deed sale deed bearing
no.1000/2016 dated 29.08.2016
✂Ex.P.6 is the Certified copy of the settlement deed bearing no.1001
of 2016 dated 29.08.2016
✂Ex.P.7 is the Certified copy of the settlement deed bearing
no.1098/2017 dated 25.09.2017
✂Ex.P.8 is the Certified copy of the settlement deed bearing
no.962/2020 dated 24.12.2020
✂Ex.P.9 is the Certified copy of the death certificate of Mrs.Pramila
dated 10.06.2021.
(v) On the side of the defendant, D.W.1 was examined and
Ex.D.1, Certified copy of the Settlement Deed No.2137 of 1972 dated
09.03.1972 was marked.
(vi) Though under the settlement deed dated 09.03.1972 only life
interest was given to the mother of the plaintiffs and defendant, viz.,
Pramila, she during her life time, relinquished her right through release
deed dated 29.08.2016 and the same was also accepted by the plaintiffs
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 01:45:04 pm )
and defendant and the said release deed was also acted upon.
Thereafter, the plaintiffs and defendant have also settled the suit
properties in favour of their mother, through settlement deed dated
29.08.2016. Once the parties admitted the release deed executed by
their mother and thereafter, they executed settlement deed in favour of
their mother, they cannot claim any right over properties of their mother.
If the mother alienated the properties during her life time.
(vii) According to the plaintiffs, the defendant obtained settlement
deeds in her favour on 25.09.2017 and 24.12.2020 and the said
settlement deeds have been obtained in the fiduciary capacity. It is also
admitted fact that the deceased mother of the plaintiffs and defendant
was residing along with the defendant till her death, therefore, due to
love and affection, it is quite nature to give the property through
settlement deed, therefore, merely because the deceased was under the
custody of the defendant, it cannot be termed as the deeds were
obtained under fiduciary capacity. According to the defendant, due to
love and affection, the property was settled in her favour. The plaintiffs
also pleaded in the plaint that the said deeds might have been executed
without knowing the types of deeds.
(viii) The 1st plaintiff, P.W.1 during her cross examination stated
that till the year 2017 her mother was living in G1, Kamala Arcade,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 01:45:04 pm )
Ganapathy Colony, Gopalapuram and thereafter her sister, Rajini
Sujatha/ defendant, took their mother to her house and till the death of
the mother, she was living with her last sister, the defendant herein. The
plaintiffs filed the suit in respect of suit properties, Flat No.G-4, super
built up area of 422 Sq.feet in the ground floor and a room of super built
up area of 100 sq.feet in Terrace with Car Parking shed of 400 sq.ft., in
the ground floor of Apartment, namely 'Kamala Arcade', Ganapathy
Colony, Gopalapuram, Chennai together with proportionate undivided
share of land of 286 Sq.ft., out of 50% in one ground 2394 sq.feet in Plot
No.10, R.S.No.102/8, Mylapore Village, Triplicane Taluk.
(ix) It is the admitted fact that the entire property of G1, G2, G3,
G4, M1 and the suit property were released by the mother Pramila in
favour of the plaintiffs and defendant, but the suit is filed only in respect
of the properties settled in favour of the defendant and the plaint is silent
in respect of the remaining properties. The plaintiffs have not clarified
as to why they filed the suit only for the properties settled in favour of the
defendant.
(x) At this juncture, the learned counsel appearing for the
defendant would submit that already the part of the properties were sold
to the builder by Pramila, plaintiffs and the defendants. The properties
allotted to the plaintiffs and the defendant through release deed are
concerned the plaintiffs already sold the properties. But there are no
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 01:45:04 pm )
records produced by the parties to that regard. Once the plaintiffs filed
the suit for partition, they ought to have filed the suit for the entire
properties of their family and there is no explanation as about the
remaining properties. As per Ex.D1, copy of settlement deed, the life
estate was given to the mother of the plaintiffs and defendant, as per
Ex.P.1 and D.1, one Kamalabhai Ammal settled her property in favour of
plaintiffs and defendant's mother namely, Pramila. As per Ex.P.2, copy
of the sale deed reveal that the plaintiffs and defendant along with their
mother, Pramila executed sale deed in favour of Hemath Sahani and
Mrs. Ramni Sawhney in respect of one portion of the property covered
under the settlement deed dated 09.03.1972. Similarly through Ex.P.3,
the plaintiffs and defendant along with their mother sold some portion of
the property covered under the settlement deed dated 09.03.1972 for
the same parties, namely Hemath Sahani and Mrs. Ramni Sawhney.
(xi) On a careful perusal of Ex.P.5, Release deed, clearly shows
that the mother of the plaintiffs and defendant released her right of life
interest over the property through settlement deed on 29.08.2016 in
favour of the plaintiffs and the defendant. Thereafter, under Ex.P.6 the
plaintiffs and the defendant jointly executed settlement deed in favour of
their mother in respect of the suit properties. Thereafter, the mother of
the plaintiffs and defendant executed settlement deeds dated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 01:45:04 pm )
25.09.2017 and 24.12.2020 in favour of the defendant. The plaintiffs
also admitted the execution of said settlement deeds, but according to
them the said deeds were obtained under the fiduciary capacity,
therefore the mother of the plaintiffs have not executed the settlement
deed voluntarily.
(xii) At this juncture, it is relevant to mention the admission made
by the 1 st plaintiff / P.W.1 during her cross examination: In Question
No.14, stated that it is correct that her siblings and her mother were
allotted Flat Nos. G-1, G-2, G-3, G-4, M-1 and the room in terrace and
and car parking and she also have taken possession for the same
through allotment letter dated 22.04.1996. Further, P.W.1 and her
siblings along with her mother executed sale deeds to the nominees of
the developers of the flats F1, F2, F3 and F4 and 50% of undivided
share and also admitted that as per the release deed dated 29.08.2016
and their mother relinquished her right and also she gave each of them
a flat and Flat no.M1 was allotted to the 1st plaintiff /P.W.1 and she also
admitted that she sold that M-1 flat in the year 2018 or 2019 before
Covid. During the life time of her mother, the 1st defendant sold the
property allotted to her, in Flat No.M.1, by admitting the execution of
release deed in her favour by her mother.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 01:45:04 pm )
(xiii) Further, P.W.1 also admitted that they have given G-4 flat, a
room in the terrace and car parking to her mother through settlement
deed on 29.08.2016 and also admitted that as per the settlement deed,
her mother was given full power in respect of Flat G-4, a room in the
terrace and a car parking. Further, the plaintiffs admitted the execution
of settlement deed in favour of her mother in respect of the suit property
and thereafter, their mother was with the defendant and thereby she
executed the settlement deeds and the plaintiffs have not specifically
denied the execution of settlement deeds and only on assumption stated
that might have been executed with knowing the type of document
obtained since she was under fiduciary capacity. Normally, a mother,
who is under the custody of the children want to settle the property in
their favour, since the other children have not taken care of mother, she
executed settlement deed in favour of the defendant.
(xiv) The settlement deeds are of the year 2017 and 2020
respectively, but the plaintiffs have not immediately filed the suit and
they only filed the suit in the year 2022 after death of their mother and
both the settlement deeds are registered documents. The plaintiffs also
failed to prove that their mother was not in a sound physical and mental
state by examining any witness or producing documents. Per contra,
the deed is a registered deed and there is a presumption under Section
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 01:45:04 pm )
60 of Registration Act. The defendant had categorically deposed about
the execution of settlement deeds, though the defendant failed to
examine the attesting witness of the settlement deed, when there is no
specific denial by the plaintiffs in respect of the execution of the
settlement deeds and they have taken a plea that the documents might
have been examined without knowing the nature of document and of
fiduciary capacity, examination of attesting witness will not arise.
(xv) The term Fiduciary capacity means, involving trust, especially
in situation when a person controls money or properties belongs to
others, where one person is entrusted to act on behalf of another with a
high degree of trust and confidence, legally bound to act with good faith
and loyalty. This includes duty to act primarily for other's benefit and to
handle assets prudently.
(xvi) Normally mother and son relationship does not come under
fiduciary capacity and the same is high pedestal and it is bonded with
love and affection. Normally settlement deeds are being executed by
the parties due to love and affection and something done by the settlee
to the settlor. Therefore, the plaintiffs after accepting the release deed
executed by their mother and constructed the building and also sold the
properties to third parties in the year 1997 and 1998 itself. Thereafter
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 01:45:04 pm )
the plaintiffs and the defendant have taken their share and thereafter, the
plaintiffs and defendant executed settlement deed in favour of Pramila,
viz., their mother in respect of the suit properties and in turn, the said
Pramila executed settlement deeds in favour of the defendant.
(xvii) Once the plaintiffs admitted the execution of settlement
deeds and taken a plea that might have been executed without knowing
the nature of documents, they have to prove the same. Normally if the
execution of document of settlement is denied, then, who rely the
settlement deed has to prove the said execution of settlement deed. In
this case, it is not the case of the plaintiffs that the said settlement deed
was not executed by the settlor to settlee, but the settlor might not have
the knowledge of the nature of document. While so, the execution is
admitted and whether the deed was executed without knowing the
nature of document has to be proved by the plaintiff, but they failed to
prove the same. The settlement deeds are dated 25.09.2017 and
24.12.2020, but till the life time of settlor, the plaintiffs have not
questioned the said deeds and after demise of settlor, after a long time,
filed this suit. Merely because the mother of the defendant was residing
with the defendant, the same itself cannot be termed as Fiduciary
Capacity. The plaintiffs have to prove the control over the properties by
the defendant, and prove that the settlement deeds were executed under
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 01:45:04 pm )
fiduciary capacity. If the fiduciary capacity is proved, then the burden of
proof lies on the defendant. But the plaintiffs failed to discharge their
initial burden of proof for the fiduciary capacity.
(xviii) The learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs would
submit that the defendant has not examined the attesting witness of the
settlement deeds to prove the execution of settlement. Therefore, the
settlement has not been proved and relied on the following judgments:
1.Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 1970 (3)
Supreme Court Cases 159 [Lakshmi Amma and Another Vs.
Talengalanarayana Bhatta and Another]
2.Judgment of this Court in Vittal Vs. Nallammal and others in
S.A.No.1103 of 2013 dated 27.02.2024.
3.Judgment of this Court in S.Rathnam Naidu and Another Vs.
Kanni Ammal and Others reported in 85 Law Weekly 372.
[S.A.No.1562 of 1965]
4.Judgment of this Court reported in 2015 SCC Online Mad 9789
[Tamil Kodi Vs. N.Kalaimani and another]
On a careful perusal of the above judgments, it is clear that if the
plaintiffs denied the execution of settlement deeds during the course of
oral evidence, it is sufficient and without examining any one of the
attesting witnesses, the settlement deed cannot be established. Further,
if settlement deed was attacked as borne on undue influences, then, the
warranty and nature has to be proved by the settlee. The burden lies on
the recipient to show that the donor has independent advice or adopted
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 01:45:04 pm )
the transaction after the influence was removed or some equivalent
circumstances.
(xix) In the case on hand, the plaintiffs have not taken any plea in
respect of undue influence and their contention is deed might have been
executed by their mother without knowing the nature of deed under
fiduciary capacity, that alone is not sufficient to attack the genuinity of
the settlement deeds when the plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration of
settlement deed as null and void and the sole burden lies on them to
establish the grounds raised in the plaint for seeking such relieves.
(xx) At this juncture, the learned counsel appearing for the
defendant relied on the following judgments:-
1. Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rosammal
Issetheenammal Fernandez (Dead) by Lrs and Others Vs. Joosa
Mariyan Fernandez and Others reported in (2000) 7 SCC 189
2. Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Govindbhai
Chhotabhai Patel and Others Vs. Patel Ramanbhai Mathurbhai
reported in (2020) 16 SCC 255
3. Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rattan Singh and
Others Vs. Nirmal Gill and Others reported in (2021) 15 Supreme
Court Cases 300
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 01:45:04 pm )
On a careful perusal of the above Judgments it is clear that the
execution of document specifically denied any strong terms, then, the
settlee has to examine witnesses, namely, attesting witnesses and also
clear that if the documents registered in accordance with the
Registration Act, when the defendants not specifically denied the
execution of gift deed in terms of Proviso II, as per requirements of
Section 68 of Evidence Act, the examination of one of the attesting
witness to prove the gift deed is not mandatory.
(xxi) In the case on hand also, the settlement deeds were
executed and registered and after a long period, the plaintiffs filed the
suit and there are no pleadings in the plaint with regard to any fraud or
undue influence and they have only stated in the plaint that the settlor
might have settled the property without knowing the nature of documents
and also under fiduciary capacity, the defendant obtained the deeds.
Therefore, the said averments alone are not sufficient and there should
be some fundamental pleadings and evidence to prove the alleged
fiduciary capacity and the fraud, therefore, without any pleadings and
evidence, it is not appropriate to grant any reliefs to the plaintiffs in
respect of the declaration of the settlement deeds.
(xxii) In view of the same, the deceased Pramila had power to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 01:45:04 pm )
execute the settlement deeds in favour of the defendant and since the
mother of the plaintiffs and defendant executed the settlement deeds
dated 25.09.2017 and 24.12.2020 in favour of the defendant in respect
of the suit properties, the said deeds are binding on the plaintiffs and
they are not entitled to the relief of declaration in respect of settlement
deeds dated 25.09.2017 and 24.12.2020 as null and void.
11. Answers for re-casted Issue No.(iii) 'Whether the plaintiffs are
entitled to partition of 1/4th share over the suit properties?
The plaintiffs have filed this suit for relief of declaration in respect
of the settlement deeds and also for partition. According to the plaintiffs,
their mother died intestate and the legal heirs of their mother are equally
entitled to share over the suit properties. This Court in the previous
issue after elaborate discussion, decided that the settlement deeds have
been duly executed by the mother of the plaintiffs and defendant in
favour of the defendant and the plaintiffs are not entitled to declaration in
respect of the settlement deeds. Since the properties were already
settled in favour of the defendant and not available for partition the
plaintiffs are not entitled to partition over the suit properties. The
plaintiffs and the defendant had executed settlement deed in favour of
their mother in the year 2016 and she inturn executed settlement deeds
in favour of the defendant. On the date of death, the mother of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 01:45:04 pm )
plaintiffs and defendant had no any properties in her name and the suit
properties were settled to the defendant during the life time of their
mother. Hence the plaintiffs are not entitled for partition, as prayed in
the plaint. Thus the issue is answered.
12. Answers for re-casted issue No.(v) 'Whether the plaintiffs are
entitled to relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from
interfering with the plaintiffs’ peaceful possession and enjoyment of the
suit properties?’
The plaintiffs sought for relief of permanent injunction restraining
the defendant from interfering with the plaintiffs' peaceful possession
and enjoyment of the suit property. As far as permanent injunction is
concerned, the plaintiffs ought to have proved their exclusive possession
and enjoyment of the property, but the plaintiffs have not filed any
documents to prove their exclusive possession, per contra, the
defendant has proved that she is entitled to the property through
settlement deeds dated 25.09.2017 and 24.12.2020 and she is in
possession, therefore, without any documents, to prove the exclusive
possession of the properties, the plaintiffs are not entitled to the relief of
permanent injunction. Thus the issue is answered
13. Answers for Re-casted Issue No.vi ‘Whether the plaintiffs are
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 01:45:04 pm )
entitled to permanent injunction restraining the defendant from alienating
the plaint schedule properties?
As far as the relief of permanent injunction from alienation of
properties are concerned, this Court in the previous issue already
decided that the plaintiffs are not entitled to the relief in respect of
settlement deeds and the said properties were already settled in favour
of the defendant vide settlement deeds dated 25.09.2017 and
24.12.2020 and the defendant is the absolute owner of the properties
through settlement deeds. Therefore the plaintiffs are not entitled to
relief in respect of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from
alienating the suit properties. Thus the issue is answered.
14. Answers for Re-casted Issue No.vii ‘To what other reliefs the
parties are entitled to?
This Court in the previous issues after elaborate discussion
decided that the settlement deeds had been executed by the mother of
the defendant and the plaintiffs in favour of the defendant, the plaintiffs
are not entitled to declaration in respect of settlement deeds dated
25.09.2017 and 24.12.2020 and the plaintiffs are not entitled for
partition, permanent injunction from restraining the defendant from
interfering possession and enjoyment of the property and also the
plaintiffs are not entitled for permanent injunction from alienating the suit
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 01:45:04 pm )
properties, therefore, the plaintiffs are not entitled to any reliefs through
this suit.
In the result, the present Suit is dismissed. Considering the
relationship between the parties and the nature of suit, there shall be no
order as to costs.
14.11.2025
Index:Yes/No;
Internet:Yes/No
Speaking / Nonspeaking order
ssd
1) List of Witnesses Examined on the side of the Plaintiffs:-
1. 1. P.W.1 – Mrs.V.Barathi
2) List of Exhibits Marked on the side of the Plaintiffs:-
Exhibits Date Description
Ex.P.1 14.11.1972 Certified copy of the Settlement Deed bearing
Ex.P.2 12.12.1997 Certified copy of the sale deed bearing No.24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 01:45:04 pm )
of 1998 dated
Ex.P.3 12.12.1997 Certified copy of the sale deed bearing No.25
of 1998
Ex.P.4 29.12.1998 Certified copy of the sale deed bearing no.909
of 1998
Ex.P.5 29.08.2016 Certified copy of the release deed sale deed
Ex.P.6 29.08.2016 Certified copy of the settlement deed bearing
no.1001 of 2016
Ex.P.7 25.09.2017 Certified copy of the settlement deed bearing
Ex.P.8 24.12.2020 Certified copy of the settlement deed bearing
Ex.P.9 10.06.2021 Certified copy of the death certificate of
Mrs.Pramila
3)List of Witnesses Examined on the side of the defendant:-
D.W.1 - Mrs.V.Rajini Sujatha
4)List of Exhibits Marked on the side of the defendants:-
Exhibit Date Description
Ex.D.1 09.03.1972 Certified copy of the Settlement Deed No.2137
of 1972
14.11.2025
To
The Sub Assistant Registrar,
O.S.Section,
High Court, Madras
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 01:45:04 pm )
P.DHANABAL, J.
ssd
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 01:45:04 pm )
14.11.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 01:45:04 pm )
