Skip to content


S. Thirupathi Pillai Vs. Ganthimathi Ammal and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Reported in(1966)2MLJ325
AppellantS. Thirupathi Pillai
RespondentGanthimathi Ammal and anr.
Cases Referred and Muppudathi Pillai v. Krishnaswami Pillai
Excerpt:
- .....respondent for declaration, possession and damages. the short facts of the case are these.2. the suit property originally belonged to one sivarama pillai, the father-in-law of the first respondent ganthimathi animal. he settled the suit property on ganthimathi ammal under a registered settlement deed dated 14th november, 1947. the contents of the deed reveal that the suit property was settled on the first respondent in consideration of her marrying his son as his second wife. but, in the year 1956, sivarama pillai revoked the settlement deed, and by exhibit b-2 dated 24th march, 1959 he sold the suit property to his own son-in-law the appellant herein. the first respondent therefore filed the suit for declaration and possession.3. the appellant resisted the suit contending that the.....
Judgment:

P. Venkatadri, J.

1. This appeal arises out of a suit instituted by the first respondent for declaration, possession and damages. The short facts of the case are these.

2. The suit property originally belonged to one Sivarama Pillai, the father-in-law of the first respondent Ganthimathi Animal. He settled the suit property on Ganthimathi Ammal under a registered settlement deed dated 14th November, 1947. The contents of the deed reveal that the suit property was settled on the first respondent in consideration of her marrying his son as his second wife. But, in the year 1956, Sivarama Pillai revoked the settlement deed, and by Exhibit B-2 dated 24th March, 1959 he sold the suit property to his own son-in-law the appellant herein. The first respondent therefore filed the suit for declaration and possession.

3. The appellant resisted the suit contending that the settlement in favour of the first respondent was a nominal document not acted upon and that in any event after the revocation of the settlement deed, he executed, a sale deed in his favour which was binding on the first respondent. On these pleadings, the parties went to trial.

4. The Courts below gave a concurrent finding that the settlement deed, Exhibit A-l, was a true and valid document binding on the appellant, and that the sale deed Exhibit B-2 was not binding on the first respondent.

5. In this Second Appeal by the son-in-law of Sivarama Pillai, learned Counsel for the appellant, without disputing the finding of fact, raised a point of law that, when a person comes to Court for declaration of her title and possession on the foot of a settlement deed and also pleads that a sale deed has been executed in favour of another of the very same property, then her suit would not be maintainable without setting aside the subsequent sale deed. To support the proposition of law, learned Counsel cited the decisions in Raja of Ramnad v. Arunachalam Chettiar 24 M.L.J. 592 and Muppudathi Pillai v. Krishnaswami Pillai : (1959)2MLJ225 (F.B.). There may be some force in his contention. But I am of the view that the principle of those decisions would not be applicable to the facts of the present case. Once a settlement deed is executed, then the settlor has no right to revoke the settlement deed except under certain conditions. He has no legal capacity to execute the sale deed, because he has no title to the property. Therefore there is no necessity for the first respondent asking for cancellation of the sale deed. She can ignore the sale deed and get a declaration on the foot of the settlement deed. Under those circumstances, I do not see any reason to interfere with the decision arrived at by the Courts below.

6. The Second Appeal is dismissed. In the circumstances, each party will bear his or her costs throughout. No leave.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //