Settlement of ancestral property not to be done - Settlement effected with consent of all other co parcener - valid - Unilateral cancellation of settlement deed is not valid.
Citation
CDJ 2017 MHC 2872
Saraswati vs K.Ganesan
Head Note
Civil Procedure Code - Order VII Rule 1 - Transfer of Property Act - Section 126 - O.S. Rules - Order 4 Rule 1 - Partition - Were suit schedule properties are absolute property of Plaintiffs and first Defendant's father, second Defendant's father in law and third and fourth Defendants' paternal grandfather - Was late grandfather only co-sharer of suit properties along with his two sons and four daughters - Was late grandfather exclusive title holder of suit properties having full right to settle suit properties in year 1986 in favour of his two sons viz., second Defendant and late second Defendant's husband and third and fourth Defendant's father –
Court held - property was devolved upon grandfather and his brother - property, which was inherited by grandfather, was ancestral property and not self acquired property of grandfather - settlement was valid and transfer was already completed in favour of other co-parceners in respect of 1/3 of grandfather share as per Settlement Deeds - Court hold that even though settlor has no right over entire property settled in favour of his sons, settlement can be held to be valid in respect of 1/3 share of grandfather in ancestral property in favour of two sons, who are other coparceners.
Civil Procedure Code - Order VII Rule 1 - Transfer of Property Act - Section 126 - O.S. Rules - Order 4 Rule 1 - Settlement deeds - Was late grandfather right in cancelling two settlement deeds executed by him in favour of his said two sons in year 1995 with regard to suit properties - Would orders on file of Trial Court declaring cancellation of settlement deed not valid in respect of suit 'B' schedule property be binding on daughters of late grandfather, who are also legal co-sharers of suit 'A' and 'B' properties - Would Plaintiffs be entitled to relief claimed in suit for partition and separate possession of Plaintiffs' collective 4/6th share in suit 'A' and 'B' properties - Would Plaintiffs be entitled to costs of suit - To what other relief Plaintiffs are entitled to –
Court held - It is well settled that settlement can be revoked only if it falls within the exception under Section 126 of Act Without bringing case under exception provided in Act, unilateral cancellation of document was not permissible in law - Once settlement was executed, title passes to settlee and transfer was completed, same cannot be cancelled unilaterally by settler - Plaintiffs failed to prove entitlement as per Act 1/90 - In view of settlement effected by Plaintiffs' father in respect of his share as early as 1986, Plaintiffs cannot claim any share under 2005 Act also - Plaintiffs are not entitled for partition - Plaintiffs are not entitled to partition - considering relationship between parties, there shall be no order as to cost - suit dismissed.
Paras :25,26
Cases Referred:
V.LOGANATHAN V. THE SUB REGISTRAR, 2014 (3) CTC 113.
LATIF ESTTE LINE INDIA LTD., V. HADEEJA AMMAL, 2011 (2) CTC 1,
ASOKAN V. LAKSHMIKUTTY AND OTEHRS, (2007) 13 SCC 210
Comparative Citation:
2017 (1) MWN(Civil) 234,
Court held - property was devolved upon grandfather and his brother - property, which was inherited by grandfather, was ancestral property and not self acquired property of grandfather - settlement was valid and transfer was already completed in favour of other co-parceners in respect of 1/3 of grandfather share as per Settlement Deeds - Court hold that even though settlor has no right over entire property settled in favour of his sons, settlement can be held to be valid in respect of 1/3 share of grandfather in ancestral property in favour of two sons, who are other coparceners.
Civil Procedure Code - Order VII Rule 1 - Transfer of Property Act - Section 126 - O.S. Rules - Order 4 Rule 1 - Settlement deeds - Was late grandfather right in cancelling two settlement deeds executed by him in favour of his said two sons in year 1995 with regard to suit properties - Would orders on file of Trial Court declaring cancellation of settlement deed not valid in respect of suit 'B' schedule property be binding on daughters of late grandfather, who are also legal co-sharers of suit 'A' and 'B' properties - Would Plaintiffs be entitled to relief claimed in suit for partition and separate possession of Plaintiffs' collective 4/6th share in suit 'A' and 'B' properties - Would Plaintiffs be entitled to costs of suit - To what other relief Plaintiffs are entitled to –
Court held - It is well settled that settlement can be revoked only if it falls within the exception under Section 126 of Act Without bringing case under exception provided in Act, unilateral cancellation of document was not permissible in law - Once settlement was executed, title passes to settlee and transfer was completed, same cannot be cancelled unilaterally by settler - Plaintiffs failed to prove entitlement as per Act 1/90 - In view of settlement effected by Plaintiffs' father in respect of his share as early as 1986, Plaintiffs cannot claim any share under 2005 Act also - Plaintiffs are not entitled for partition - Plaintiffs are not entitled to partition - considering relationship between parties, there shall be no order as to cost - suit dismissed.
Paras :25,26
Cases Referred:
V.LOGANATHAN V. THE SUB REGISTRAR, 2014 (3) CTC 113.
LATIF ESTTE LINE INDIA LTD., V. HADEEJA AMMAL, 2011 (2) CTC 1,
ASOKAN V. LAKSHMIKUTTY AND OTEHRS, (2007) 13 SCC 210
Comparative Citation:
2017 (1) MWN(Civil) 234,
Comments
Post a Comment