Case Note & Summary
The case involves a partition suit filed by three sisters against their brother. The suit property was originally purchased by their grandfather and later settled on their father with a life interest and absolute rights to the children. The father executed a settlement deed in favour of the son in 2011, which the sisters claimed was not binding. The trial court decreed the suit in favour of the sisters. On appeal, the High Court examined the evidence and found that the sisters had given their concurrence to the settlement deed. The court held that the settlement deed was valid and binding on the sisters, and therefore, they could not seek partition. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the trial court decree and dismissing the suit.
Headnote
A) Hindu Law - Partition - Settlement Deed - Concurrence of Daughters - The court considered whether a settlement deed executed by the father in favour of the son is binding on the daughters who had given their concurrence. The court held that the daughters, having given their concurrence to the settlement deed, cannot later challenge it and seek partition. The appeal was allowed and the suit was dismissed. (Paras 1-12)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the settlement deed executed by the father in favour of the son is binding on the daughters who had given their concurrence.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. The judgment and decree dated 31.10.2023 in O.S.No.3207 of 2022 on the file of XVII Additional City Civil Court, Chennai is set aside. The suit is dismissed. No costs.
Law Points
- Partition
- Settlement Deed
- Concurrence
- Binding Nature
- Limitation
Case Details
2026 LawText (MAD) (04) 231
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, K.RAJASEKAR
Mr. S.Vijay Kumar, Mr. G.Vijaya Kumar
Pramila Nagarajan, G.Sharmila, R.Bakyalakshmi
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Appeal against judgment and decree in a partition suit.
Remedy Sought
Appellant sought to set aside the trial court decree granting partition and declaration that settlement deed is not binding.
Filing Reason
Appellant challenged the trial court's decree which declared the settlement deed executed by his father in his favour as not binding on the respondents/plaintiffs.
Previous Decisions
Trial court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs, declaring the settlement deed dated 08.04.2011 as not binding and granting 3/4th share to the plaintiffs.
Issues
Whether the suit claim is barred by limitation?
Whether the settlement deed executed by the father is binding on the daughters?
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued that the settlement deed was executed with the concurrence of the plaintiffs.
Respondents argued that their father had no right to deal with the property and the settlement deed is not binding.
Ratio Decidendi
A settlement deed executed by a father with the concurrence of his daughters is binding on them, and they cannot later challenge it and seek partition.
Judgment Excerpts
The defendant in O.S.No. 3207 of 2022 on the file of the XVII Additional City Civil Court at Chennai is the appellant herein, having filed the Appeal questioning the Judgment and Decree dated 31.10.2023.
The plaintiffs then came to know about a settlement deed said to have been executed by Shanmuga Sundaram in favour of the defendant.
Procedural History
The suit was filed in 2022, trial court decreed on 31.10.2023, appeal filed in 2024, reserved on 23.03.2026, pronounced on 02.04.2026.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC): Order 41 Rule 1, Section 96
