Madras High Court (P.B. Balaji, J.) — Six cross appeal suits under Section 96 CPC (A.S.Nos.594–599 of 2024) against the common judgment dated 26.04.2024 of the III Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in O.S.Nos.2048, 2242, 2243, 3100, 3354 & 3355 of 2014, arising from rival settlement deeds concerning premises at Door Nos.266–268, Sydenhams Road, Choolai, Chennai. K.P. Chandra Rao had settled constructed portions with undivided shares on the heirs of his predeceased son Appa Rao (Exs.B2 & B3, 05.06.2002); three years later he executed settlement deeds (Exs.B4 & B5, 03.08.2005) in favour of his wife Lakshmi Kanthamma in respect of 567 sq.ft of vacant land each, cancelled Exs.B2/B3 unilaterally (revoked 26.09.2008, Exs.A26/A27), and Lakshmi Kanthamma settled portions on her daughter Poorna Keerthi Padma and the latter's children (Exs.B6, A15, A16). Held, dismissing all six appeals: (i) once the property was developed into a multi-storeyed building and co-owners inducted with undivided shares, the lands became impartible, so the owner could not settle bounded extents of vacant land — Exs.B4/B5 invalid, and the derivative settlements by Lakshmi Kanthamma (Exs.B6, A15, A16) fell with them; (ii) Exs.B2/B3 were duly acted upon (assessment and property tax in the settlees' names), the unilateral cancellation was without right, was itself revoked by Chandra Rao, and stood set aside by the ex-parte decree dated 06.04.2009 in O.S.No.5764 of 2007 (Ex.A28); (iii) even otherwise, Exs.A9/A10 could only concern Door No.268, the sole property Chandra Rao had purchased; (iv) plaintiffs seeking declaration must prove their case — none entered the witness box and P.W.1's untested chief evidence was discarded, so the claimant-appellants failed and earned no decree; (v) limitation, a mixed question of fact and law, barred neither set of suits, the accrual point for declaration-plus-injunction suits being the date title and possession are threatened, with disputes crystallising only after the settlers' demise; (vi) the family-arrangement doctrine of Kale v. Deputy Director of Consolidation was inapplicable — no family arrangement was ever made — and the documents could not be read harmoniously. No infirmity or perversity was found in the Trial Court's findings. Appeals dismissed with no order as to costs; connected CMPs closed.
