Madras HC Upholds Daughter's Title Under 2002 Settlement Deed, Dismisses Collusive Partition Suit by Father and Uncle

A Division Bench of the Madras High Court confirmed a daughter's absolute title over a Chennai property settled by her father during divorce proceedings, rejecting claims that the property formed part of a joint family estate.

A Division Bench comprising Justice N. Sathish Kumar and Justice M. Jothiraman, disposing of three connected first appeals on 30 July 2026, confirmed that a Chennai property settled by a father in favour of his minor daughter during mutual divorce proceedings in 2002 was his individual property and not a joint family asset. The bench dismissed all three appeals — filed by the paternal uncle S.D.S.Selvam and the father S.Duraimanickam against the judgment of the XVI Additional City Civil Court, Chennai, dated 17 December 2021 — holding that the suit for partition filed by the paternal uncle was collusive in nature, designed jointly by the two brothers to defeat the daughter's settled rights. The trial court had already decreed the daughter Ilavarasi's suit for declaration and recovery of possession while dismissing the partition suit in entirety.

The Two Suits and Their Background

The litigation traces its origin to two suits that were ultimately tried together and disposed of by a common judgment. In O.S.No.8953 of 2019, Ilavarasi — the daughter of S.Duraimanickam and his divorced wife Bharathi — sought a declaration of absolute title over a Chennai property described as B-Schedule in the companion case, relying on a registered settlement deed dated 21 March 2002. In O.S.No.8954 of 2019, her paternal uncle S.D.S.Selvam filed a suit for partition claiming that both the A-Schedule property (ancestral agricultural land) and the B-Schedule property were joint family properties of the family of late S.D.Somasundaram, a former Cabinet Minister of Tamil Nadu.

S.D.Somasundaram's two sons are S.Duraimanickam (the elder) and S.D.S.Selvam (the younger). S.Duraimanickam married Bharathi on 18 January 1991, and Ilavarasi was born of that marriage. When Ilavarasi was about ten years old, the marriage broke down. S.Duraimanickam filed a divorce petition, which culminated in a decree of divorce by mutual consent. As part of the settlement in those divorce proceedings, S.Duraimanickam executed Ex.A3, a registered settlement deed dated 21 March 2002, gifting the B-Schedule property to his minor daughter through her guardian mother. Ilavarasi attained majority on 4 November 2009 and thereafter filed the suit for declaration and recovery of possession.

The procedural history of the suits is substantial. The declaration suit was originally filed as C.S.No.51 of 2011 before the Madras High Court itself, while the partition suit was initially filed before the Principal District and Sessions Court, Tanjore, as O.S.No.121 of 2009. On a transfer application, the Tanjore suit was transferred to the High Court as C.S.No.266 of 2013 and joint trial commenced. Subsequently, both suits were transferred on pecuniary jurisdiction to the XVI Additional City Civil Court, Chennai, and renumbered as O.S.No.8953 and O.S.No.8954 of 2019. Joint evidence was recorded and the trial court delivered a common judgment on 17 December 2021, decreeing the declaration suit and dismissing the partition suit.

The Competing Claims Before the Division Bench

Mr. V. Ashokpathy, appearing for S.D.S.Selvam (appellant in A.S.Nos.332 and 333 of 2022), argued that the A-Schedule property comprised vast Nanja lands yielding surplus income, and only out of that income did S.D.Somasundaram purchase the B-Schedule site in the name of his elder son S.Duraimanickam. Since S.Duraimanickam was earning only approximately Rs.2,300 per month at the time of the 1989 purchase, he could not, it was argued, have bought the property from his own means. Counsel submitted that once sufficient joint family nucleus is shown, a purchase in the name of a co-sharer must be presumed to be a joint family purchase.

Mr. P.R. Raman, Senior Counsel for S.Duraimanickam (appellant in A.S.No.433 of 2022), urged that the settlement deed under Ex.A3, though admitted to have been executed, was obtained under intimidation and coercion during the matrimonial dispute and was not a product of the executant's free will.

Mr. Niranjan Rajagopalan, appearing for Ilavarasi (respondent in all three appeals), countered that the partition suit was collusive — filed by both brothers together to non-suit the settlement deed. He pointed out that the document had not been challenged in the more than two decades since its execution. He also argued that, even in the Family Court judgment Ex.A4 dated 11 April 2002 in F.C.O.P.No.433 of 2002, the handing over of the gift deed was recorded, establishing that the settlement had been acted upon.

Whether B-Schedule Property Was Purchased from Joint Family Nucleus

The bench analysed the evidence of S.Duraimanickam (D.W.1) and S.D.S.Selvam (D.W.2) in detail. S.D.S.Selvam admitted in cross-examination on 20 April 2021 that he did not know the nature of income yielded from the A-Schedule property, that he did not know whether agricultural operations were carried out during his father's time, and that he had not overseen construction on the B-Schedule property. He could not even remember till when he resided in the B-Schedule property.

A significant admission emerged: when S.D.S.Selvam contested elections, he declared his assets and categorically described only the A-Schedule property as family property — not the B-Schedule property. S.Duraimanickam's own evidence showed that he had been an Income Tax assessee since January 1987, well before the 1989 purchase of the B-Schedule site under Ex.A1 for a consideration of Rs.1,04,250. The evidence of D.W.4 (Bharathi) established that S.Duraimanickam was employed at TVS Company before joining the Port Trust of India, a fact that was not refuted. The bench drew the inference that, given S.Duraimanickam's prior employment history, a purchase by him out of personal income was the more probable explanation.

On the joint family nucleus theory, the bench held that the mere existence of dry agricultural land in the family without proof of surplus income could not sustain the plea. The father S.D.Somasundaram, despite serving as Cabinet Minister of Tamil Nadu from 1974 to 1984 and again from 1991 to 1996, had not even filed Income Tax returns, which D.W.2 himself admitted was because there was insufficient income. The bench stated that absent any evidence that the A-Schedule lands yielded surplus income, the B-Schedule property purchased in an individual's name could not be treated as a joint family acquisition. It also noted the protection available under the Hindu Gains of Learning Act, 1930 for earnings from personal service, as a reinforcing consideration.

Whether the Settlement Deed Could Be Challenged Collaterally

The execution of Ex.A3, the settlement deed dated 21 March 2002, was admitted by all parties. S.Duraimanickam did not file any counter-claim in the suit challenging the deed on grounds of coercion or undue influence. The bench held that even if a document is obtained by coercion, misrepresentation, or undue influence, it is not void ab initio but only voidable. Such a document must be challenged by the executant within three years. No such challenge was mounted. A collateral attack through a partition suit filed by the executant's brother, nearly seven years after the settlement deed's execution, was impermissible.

On the question of acceptance of the gift, the bench applied Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act: “Handing over possession is not sine qua non for valid gift.” What is required is acceptance by or on behalf of the donee. The minor daughter's guardian had accepted the settlement. The Family Court judgment Ex.A4 recorded the handing over of the deed, and the minor was residing with her father at the time — making the plea that the settlement was not acted upon untenable.

The bench also addressed the claim by S.D.S.Selvam that he came to know of the settlement deed only in 2004 or 2005. It found this implausible: the two brothers were living as a joint family, their mother was a witness to the settlement deed, and the mother had paid Rs.16 lakhs as alimony in the divorce proceedings. Feigning ignorance of these facts was, the bench concluded, against normal human conduct. Even accepting the 2004–2005 date of knowledge, the partition suit filed in September 2009 — four years later — was not within a reasonable period.

Finding of Collusion Between the Two Brothers

The bench made a clear finding that the partition suit was filed in collusion by S.D.S.Selvam and S.Duraimanickam together, as a scheme to defeat Ilavarasi's rights under the settlement deed. The bench noted that despite the settlement in his daughter's favour, S.Duraimanickam had remarried and continued to hold the property. The collusive motive was, in the bench's view, to continue that possession.

The bench also noted that during the pendency of the suits, both brothers had sold a portion of the A-Schedule property — an admission made by D.W.2 in his own evidence. Because a substantial portion of the A-Schedule property had been alienated without any details of the purchasers being placed on record, the bench found it impossible to grant a preliminary decree for partition in respect of that property either. It declined to interfere with the trial court's dismissal of the partition suit in entirety, while observing that whatever A-Schedule property remained after the brothers' alienations could be the subject of a separate proceeding worked out as per law.

Order

All three appeals — A.S.Nos.332, 333 and 433 of 2022 — were dismissed. The common judgment and decree of the XVI Additional City Civil Court, Chennai, dated 17 December 2021, was confirmed. The connected miscellaneous petition was closed. No costs were awarded.