(Prayer: The second appeal is filed to set-aside the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.246 of 2024 dated 20.03.2025 on the file of 15th Additional District and Sessions Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai confirming the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.4452 of 2018 dated 07.12.2023 on the file of the II Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai.)

1. Challenging the concurrent findings of the Courts below, the defendant has preferred this appeal. Before the Trial Court, the respondent/plaintiff filed a suit to direct the defendant to register the 'B' schedule property in her name or her nominee as per the undertaking dated 26.02.2007, failing which, vacate and deliver the vacant possession of the 'A' Schedule Property to the plaintiff, failing which, this Court may register the 'B' Schedule Property in the name of the plaintiff or her nominee and for a relief of permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff restraining the defendant from alienating or encumbering or dealing with the property mentioned in 'B' schedule property and for costs.

2. According to the plaintiff, the defendant is one of her sisters. Their parents, Dhayalamary and Kalyana Sundaram has 6 daughters and 4 sons born to them. During their lifetime, their parents owned various immovable properties and allotted them to their sons and daughters. The plaintiff was allotted A schedule property bearing Door No.69/48. Likewise, their mother settled B schedule property in favour of the defendant through a settlement deed dated 05.09.1988 as a vacant site. The defendant later expressed her desire to occupy A-schedule property and in turn, she agreed to convey the B schedule property to the plaintiff and an agreement was executed to that effect on 26.02.2007. However, contrary to the undertaking given, the defendant failed to convey the B-schedule property to the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff raised objection to the construction proposed by the defendant in the A-schedule property, but the defendant without considering the same, put up construction in the A-schedule property and residing there with her legal heirs. Hence, the cause of action arose for filing the suit.

3. The defendant appeared before the Trial Court by filing written statement and admitted that B-schedule property was settled in her favour by her mother on 05.09.1988. The defendant also contended that the A-schedule property is a Government poramboke land, in which the plaintiff cannot claim any absolute right and the alleged consent deed dated 26.02.2007 was also obtained by force.

4. Considering the objections, the learned Trial Judge framed issues and both the parties adduced evidence before the Trial Court. The undertaking affidavit, dated 06.03.2007 given by the defendant was marked as Ex.A2 and the plaintiff examined one of the attesters with regard to the execution of the same. The defendant also examined herself as DW1. During the trial, the defendant admitted her signature in the consent deed, but gave some evasive answers and not cooperated for cross examination. The Trial Court extracted Ex.A2 undertaking affidavit, which clearly reveals that the defendant agreed to exchange the B-schedule property in favour of the plaintiff. Furthermore, on perusal of the cross-examination of the defendant, it is seen that she also admitted the undertaking affidavit in Ex.A2, her husband is also one of the attesters and she also admitted her signature, but gave evasive reply. Thus, the consent deed was proved by the plaintiff. Accordingly, the Trial Court, decreed the suit as prayed for, in favour of the plaintiff.

5. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant preferred an appeal in A.S.No.246 of 2024 before the XV Additional Judge, Chennai. The first appellate Judge analysed the entire evidence and facts on record, framed separate points for consideration and ultimately held that, as per Ex.A2, it is clear that the defendant had agreed to convey the B-schedule property in favour of the plaintiff. Ex.A2 was duly proved through PW2, who is a brother of both the parties. The findings of the Trial Court were confirmed by the first appellate Court and the defendant was granted four months time to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the B-schedule property. Challenging the concurrent findings, the present appeal has been filed.

6. When the second appeal came up for admission, this Court directed the parties to appear, considering the fact that they are sisters and that one of their brother is a practising advocate before this Court. The parties have accordingly appeared today. Considering the findings of the Courts below, which clearly proves that based on Ex.A2, the plaintiff claiming right over the B-schedule property though it belongs to the defendant by way of settlement deed executed by their mother in the year 1988 and the vacant site described in A-schedule was allotted to the plaintiff. Though the said A-schedule was claimed as a poramboke land, it had been under the long possession of their parents and was subsequently allotted to the plaintiff. Thereafter, the appellant/defendant requested the plaintiff for exchange of the land and the plaintiff/respondent also agreed to it. Accordingly, Ex.A2, the consent undertaking affidavit was executed by the appellant/defendant through which she agreed to execute the sale deed in respect of B-schedule property in favour of the plaintiff and in return, she was permitted to occupy the A-schedule property. Thereafter, the defendant refused to execute the sale deed, and hence, the plaintiff raised objection regarding the construction put up by her. As on date, a house has been constructed in the A-schedule property, the defendant and her children are residing in separate portions.

7. When this Court enquired about the status of the suit properties, both the plaintiff and the defendant admitted that, in the A-schedule property, the defendant has constructed a house and is residing there along with her children and the B-schedule property remains vacant. When this Court questioned about the undertaking affidavit, the defendant submitted that she has no objection to execute the settlement or sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the B-schedule property measuring 299 sq.ft. However, she apprehended that their other sisters, who have filed a partition suit in OS.No.1675 of 2019 claiming shares in both the suit properties, may interfere with her enjoyment of the A-schedule property.

8. Admittedly, the alleged partition suit is filed by the sons and daughters of Dhayalamary and Kalyana Sundaram against this defendant alone after filing of the present suit. The facts also reveal that the other sisters and brothers are given shares in other properties. Apart from that, there are three house properties in poramboke land and also 100 sovereigns of jewels approximately, which have not yet been divided among them. Therefore, the defendant submits that, if other sharers are willing to effect a division of those properties and the jewels, she would cooperate in such division and claim only her lawful share.

9. The fact also reveals that, as on date, the defendant is not on cordial terms with the other shares regarding the division of the remaining properties. As on date, two of her brothers died and their legal heirs alone are available and other shares have also become senior citizens. Hence, both the parties have requested this Court to refer the matter to mediation for the purpose of effecting partition of the three undivided house properties and the jewels.

10. Considering the submissions of both the parties, this Court is of the view that no question of law arises for consideration in this appeal. The appeal is devoid of merits and the findings of the Trial Court stand confirmed. Accordingly, the second appeal is disposed of the with the following directions:

                   i) The appellant/defendant shall execute the sale deed in favour of the respondent/plaintiff in respect of the B-schedule property within eight weeks.

                   ii) On execution of the sale deed, the respondent/plaintiff is entitled to take possession of the B-schedule property as a lawful owner.

                   iii) In respect of the A-schedule property, it is declared that the defendant is the absolute owner as on date, and that she, along with her children, is residing in the said property. Accordingly, the possession of the appellant/defendant is confirmed as her absolute property along with her lawful possession.

                   iv) It is made clear that, in respect of A and B schedule suit properties involved in this second appeal, the other sharers have no right or title, as per the findings recorded in the suit.

                   v) In respect of the undivided shares, namely, the three house properties, and the jewels, the sharers/children of Dhayalamary and Kalyana Sundaram are directed to appear for mediation on 17.12.2025.

11. With the above directions, the second appeal is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Post the matter “for reporting compliance” on 16.12.2025.