The court allowed an application to implead the son of the deceased plaintiff as a defendant. holding that a compromise clause relinquishing inheritance rights violates Section 6 of the Transfer of Property Act and thus is invalid, making the son a necessary party to inherit.
Application allowed; applicant impleaded as 3rd defendant in the suit pending suit.
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.
A.No.3415 of 2021 in C.S.No.738 of 2002
A.No.3415 of 2021 in
C.S.No.738 of 2002
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
This application has been filed by the applicant, seeking to implead himself in the suit, which is one for declaration that the one time settlement of Rs.150.00 Lakhs dated 24.05.1999 by way of discharge as full and final settlement arrived between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant towards the loan amounts advanced by the 1st defendant to the plaintiff from 1993 to 1996 as valid, binding and enforceable between the parties and for a consequential injunctive reliefs.
2.Pending suit, the sole plaintiff died. His daughter and 2nd wife were impleaded as 2nd and 3rd plaintiffs. The applicant is the son of the deceased plaintiff. He would claim that as a son he is entitled to share in the properties of his father and therefore, he is a necessary party to the suit. The 1st defendant and the 2nd plaintiff in the suit do not have any objection for this application being allowed. However, the 3rd plaintiff, who is the 2nd wife of the deceased sole plaintiff would resist the application contending that the applicant had given up his rights including his right to inherit the estate of his father in a compromise entered into in C.S.No.118 of 1996 and therefore, he is not a necessary party to the suit. The said memo of compromise has also been produced.
A.No.3415 of 2021 in C.S.No.738 of 2002
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
KKN
3.No doubt, the compromise document reads that the plaintiffs therein namely, the applicant, his wife and his children have relinquished their rights to the properties of the father including the right to inherit. It is clear to my mind that the relinquishment of the right to inherit being opposed to Section 6 of the Transfer of Property Act is invalid. Therefore, the claim that the applicant as the son of Rajabathar has no right to succeed to the property is not acceptable. The relationship having been admitted, I do not think there is any impediment for impleading the applicant as a defendant in the suit. This application is therefore, allowed, the applicant is impleaded as 3rd defendant in the suit.
the necessary amendments consequent upon the impleading on or before 08.10.2021.
28.09.2021
kkn
A.No.3415 of 2021 in C.S.No.738 of 2002
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a relinquishment of inheritance rights in a compromise document is valid when opposed by Section 6 of the Transfer of Property Act.
Whether the applicant, as the son of the deceased plaintiff, is a necessary party to be impleaded in the suit.
Whether the applicant can be impleaded as a defendant despite previous compromise.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Son of deceased plaintiff
R.Subramanian
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
