Full Judgment
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the execution and registration of settlement dated 30.06.2016 registered as Document No.2807/2016 by the 4th respondent in favour of the 5th respondent on the file of the third respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 3 to initiate action as against the respondents 4 and 5 under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Patta Passbook Act, 1983.)
1. Challenging the execution and registration of settlement deed dated 30.06.2016 by the fourth respondent in favour of the fifth respondent, the present writ petition has been filed.
2. Heard Mr.R.Prabhakaran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.R.Anandharaj, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 to 3.
3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is as follows:-
The petitioner, earlier, married one R.Manoharan in the year 1998 and there was no child out of the said wedlock. According to the petitioner, he had possessed several properties including Everest Hotel, at Poonamallee High Road, Chennai besides gold ornaments and valuable articles etc. However, he died on 05.07.1996 leaving her as his only legal heir to succeed. Thereafter, the petitioner married the fourth respondent on 01.12.2003. It is further stated that since the petitioner was not able to manage the properties, she sold some properties and out of the sale proceeds, she purchased properties at Chennai, Trichy, Sivagangai and Chittor. It is further stated that since the petitioner did not have any issue out of the wedlock between herself and the fourth respondent, they have adopted a female child by name Denita alias Dwarakhsri. While so, during the year 2012, the fourth respondent developed illicit intimacy with one Latha and hence a dispute arose between them. It is further stated that the fourth respondent attempted to kill the petitioner while travelling in the car on 20.11.2012 for which a criminal case has been registered against him and it is pending. In the meanwhile, the fourth respondent executed a settlement deed in respect of the properties purchased in Sivagangai in favour of his sister namely, Maheswari, the fifth respondent herein which was registered as Document No.2807 of 2016 on the file of the Joint Sub Registrar II, Sivagangai on 30.06.2016. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that even though properties have purchased in the name of the fourth respondent, the entire sale consideration has been paid by the petitioner out of the sale proceeds of the properties left by her husband R.Manoharan. He would further contend that the fourth respondent is only a binami in the above said transaction and the fourth respondent did not pay any amount for the purpose of above properties and therefore, the fourth respondent has no right over the property and he cannot execute a settlement deed in favour of the fifth respondent herein. Therefore, the settlement deed executed by the fourth respondent in favour of the fifth respondent is liable to be set aside. In support of his contentions, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied on the following judgments:-
(i) In Sah Mukhun Lall Panday Vs.Sah Koondun Lall reported in 1875 SCC Cal 34
(ii) In Baldev Singh Vs.Smt.Darshani Devi reported in AIR 1993 HP 141 and
(iii) In Rajambal Vs.The Inspector General (Registration) reported in 2012 (2) CTC 289 .
5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record.
6. A perusal of the documents, it is seen that the property which is the subject matter of the settlement deed was purchased on 06.05.2008 jointly by the petitioner as well as by the fourth respondent. Subsequently, the fourth respondent executed a settlement deed in respect of his half share alone in favour of the fifth respondent. The relevant portion of the deed of settlement executed by the fourth respondent which was registered in favour of the fifth respondent by the third respondent is reads as follows:
Tamil
7. So far as the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the entire sale consideration for the purchase of the property in dispute was paid by the petitioner which is a disputed question of fact. Therefore, the disputed question of facts cannot be decided by this Court while sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution. If at all the petitioner claims that the entire amount for sale consideration paid by her, it is for her to approach the competent forum in the manner known to law and establish the same and get suitable relief. The judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case to decide the issue. Therefore, the petitioner cannot maintain the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, W.M.P(MD)No.12646 of 2016 is closed.