K.Periyammal, Vs K.Karuppanagoundar (Died) — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

K.Periyammal, Vs K.Karuppanagoundar (Died) — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Second appeal partly allowed: the lower appellate court's judgment and decree is set aside in so far as the relief of declaration and the trial court's judgment and decree stands partly restored (declaration upheld); the dismissal of the suit as regards permanent injunction is sustained (that relief stands dismissed); the plaintiff is left at liberty to file an appropriate suit for partition and separate possession against the other co-owner; no order as to costs; connected miscellaneous petition closed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the judgments relied on by the First Appellate Court (2014(5)CTC 507 and 2009(5)CTC 380) were applicable to this case, given that the above two judgments are only applicable to possession of property and suits for permanent injunction but not to suits for declaration; and whether an undivided share of a coparcener can be a subject matter of sale/transfer (as stated in para 11 of 2009(5)CTC 380). +2 more

Court's answer

Since the plaintiff brought the suit against the defendant (her father) who himself cancelled the settlement deed through Ex.A5, the suit filed by the plaintiff seeking declaration is maintainable.

Ratio / Principle

Relying on the two Full Bench decisions of this court (Latif Estate Line India v. Hadeeja Ammal, 2011-1-L.W.673; Sasikala v. RDO Devakottai, 2022(5)CTC 257), any unilateral cancellation of a settlement deed is a void document; accordingly the defendant's unilateral cancellation of Ex.A2 by cancellation deed Ex.A5 dated 07/06/2010 is void, will not affect the plaintiff's rights, the plaintiff continues to hold valid title as absolute owner of the property settled in her favour, and the defendant has no right in the suit properties.

Key takeaways

The lower appellate court, while rightly denying injunction, erroneously went further and reversed the decree in respect of declaration also; to that extent its judgment and decree are perverse requiring interference, and in view of the settled proposition that unilateral cancellation is void, the lower appellate court's reversal of the trial court's declaration decree is set aside.ratio¶113
The plaintiff having been settled only with an undivided share is a co-owner/transferee of an undivided right; a co-owner cannot seek or maintain an injunction as against a co-owner, and the co-owner's remedy is only a suit for partition and separate possession; accordingly the lower appellate court's dismissal of the suit in respect of permanent injunction is sustained.ratio¶114

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Second Appeal, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court (G. Arul Murugan, J.), decided 06/08/2025 - Partition/settlement - Unilateral cancellation of settlement deed - Plaintiff-daughter was settled schedule 'A' property (partitioned to the defendant-father under registered partition deed Ex.A1 dated 11/10/1995) by settlement deed Ex.A2 of even date; the defendant unilaterally cancelled Ex.A2 by cancellation deed Ex.A5 dated 07/06/2010 without alleging fraud or coercion and without challenging Ex.A2. Following the Full Bench decisions in M/s.Latif Estate Line India v. Hadeeja Ammal (2011-1-L.W.673) and Sasikala v. RDO, Devakottai (2022(5)CTC 257), this court held that any unilateral cancellation of a settlement deed is a void document; Ex.A5 therefore does not affect the plaintiff's rights, she remains absolute owner, and the defendant has no right in the suit properties. Maintainability: the suit for declaration against the very defendant who executed the cancelling deed is maintainable, and the lower appellate court's reversal of the declaration decree was perverse and is set aside. However, the plaintiff having taken only an undivided share under the settlement is a co-owner, and a co-owner cannot seek an injunction against a co-owner; her remedy lies only in a suit for partition and separate possession, so the dismissal of the relief of permanent injunction by the lower appellate court is sustained. All substantial questions of law answered in favour of the appellant; second appeal partly allowed, trial court decree partly restored, suit dismissed qua injunction, with liberty to sue for partition.