A. PADMAVATHI Vs. R. MAHENDIRAN
LAWS(MAD)-2019-7-608
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Decided on July 18,2019

A. Padmavathi Appellant
VERSUS
R. Mahendiran Respondents

JUDGEMENT

C.V.Karthikeyan,J. - (1.) The plaintiff in O.S. No. 7 of 2004 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Uthangarai, is the appellant herein.
(2.) The plaintiff A. Padmavathi had filed O.S. No. 7 of 2004 seeking the relief of declaration of title and recovery of possession with respect to two items of properties which were primarily vacant agricultural lands. She had filed the suit against her two younger brothers R. Mahendiran and R. Gajendran @ Settu and also against her mother R. Yasoda Ammal. By Judgment dated 10.04.2012, the suit was decreed. The defendants thereafter filed A.S. No. 25 of 2014 before the Sub Court, Uthangari. The third defendant R. Yasoda Ammal died pending the appeal. By Judgment dated 26.11.2014, A.S. No. 25 of 2014 was allowed and the Judgment and Decree in O.S. No. 7 of 2004 was set aside. Aggrieved by that Judgment, the plaintiff had filed the present Second Appeal.
(3.) The Second Appeal had been admitted on the following three substantial questions of law:- "a. In the wake of memo of compromise entered by the appellant and other members of the family (Coparceners) in O.S. No. 282/1988 and of the settlement deed (Exs. A1 and A2) by her father, attested by other Coparceners/respondents, the character of ancestral property lost its character and features and accordingly, the Appellate Court findings otherwise, in this regard are not erroneous in law and grave error of justice?; b. When the respondents/defendants being party in the memo of compromise entered in O.S. No. 282/1988 and further attested the settlement dated (Exs. A1 and A2) executed by his father, whether the character of ancestral property was not altered?; c. Whether the Appellate Court's decision is valid and correct in holding that the appellant/plaintiff should have prayed for the alleged cancellation of irrevocable Settlement Deed executed by the appellant's father as null and void, when the alleged unilateral cancellation itself is barred in law as held in 2014 (3) CTC 113 as per provision in Section 126 of T.P. Act?" O.S. No. 7 of 2004 [District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Uthangarai: ;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.