This Second Appeal against a decree for delivery of suit property was dismissed. The Court upheld the validity of the settlement deed and found no infirmity in the lower courts' orders, directing the appellants to vacate within six months.
Six months' time granted to appellants to vacate the suit premises from the date of receipt of the judgment.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 07.03.2018
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA
Second Appeal No.146 of 2018 CMP.No.3580 OF 2018
This Second Appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 26.09.2016 made in A.S.No.79 of 2014 on the file of the learned V Additional District & Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, confirming the judgment and decree dated 27.06.2014 made in O.S.No.501 of 2010 on the file of the learned First Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore.
children. The father of the plaintiff and the first defendant is one Perumalsamy Naidu, who had executed the settlement deed in favour of the plaintiff on 21.04.1971. Since the date of settlement deed, the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. During the life time of the mother Muthammal, the first defendant had stayed with her mother in order to help her. There was yet another sister to the plaintiff by name Ranganayaki, who had filed a suit for partition against the plaintiff in O.S.No.599 of 2000 before the I Additional Sub Court, Coimbatore, which had later been transferred to Fast Track Court II and renumbered as OS.No.537 of 2004 and the said suit was dismissed on merits and the defendants preferred the appeal before this Court in AS.No.868 of 2006 and the same was also dismissed. It is stated that in the said suit, the validity of the settlement deed dated 21.07.1971 was upheld. After the death of the mother, on 26.12.2008 the defendants 1 to 4 occupied the suit property and refused to vacate the same without having any right over the same. Hence the suit has been filed for delivery of possession and for damages from January 2009.
suit property and has got share, there is nothing on record to substantiate of the claim. When the settlement deed, by which the plaintiff's right has been already declared by this Court and that the defendants have no right over the title to the suit property and also in the absence of any jural relationship between the landlord and the defendant, the possession of the defendants of the suit is unlawful. The defendants have no right to continue to be in occupation of the property and they have to deliver the same to the plaintiff.
dpq
To
Second Appeal No.146 of 2018 CMP.No.3580 OF 2018
GMR(Co) CS/17/05/18
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the second appeal against the decree for delivery of possession based on a valid settlement deed deserves interference.
Whether the defendants are entitled to time to vacate the premises before the execution of the decree.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
D.Savithri
D.Usha
D.Raja
D.Venkatesh
P.Sundararajan
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
