Summary: The Madras High Court made a decision on a complicated property disagreement involving several people and claims about someone's mental health. The court confirmed that a settlement agreement was valid, rejecting appeals about who owns the property and claims for damages.
In the heart of Chennai, a legal battle unfolded over a piece of property. The main players were Mrs. K. Jansi Rani and Mr. G. Balasubramanian. The dispute centered around a property initially owned by Raju Mudaliar, which changed hands through various family members over the years.
On September 20, 2002, an agreement was made by Karunambal in favor of her son, Kandasamy. This agreement was questioned by Jansi Rani, who claimed it was more like a will than a settlement. However, the court, led by Justice P.B. Balaji, confirmed it as a valid settlement, not a will.
"The document in Ex.B5 is an absolute deed of settlement and it is not a testamentary instrument."
A significant twist in the case was the claim that Kandasamy, who gave the power to act on his behalf, was not mentally well. Evidence from the Government Institute of Mental Health was presented, but the court found no proof that he was mentally unfit at the time of the property transactions in 2005.
The court had to consider whether canceling the settlement agreement needed to be challenged. It concluded that since the agreement was valid, any attempt to cancel it was not effective and did not need a separate challenge.
"The failure to seek cancellation of the cancellation deed is not fatal to the case of the contesting respondent."
The court rejected all appeals, including the claim for damages by Balasubramanian for using and living on the property. The judgment emphasized the importance of clear evidence and following legal steps in property disputes.
