Life interest holder cannot convey absolute title via settlement deed without express power of alienation.

The suit property, located in Guindy, Chennai, was originally purchased by the parties' grandfather, Vijayaranga Nayakar, in 1949

Through various settlement and cancellation deeds (Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-4), the grandfather eventually settled the property in a manner that granted a limited life interest to his son, V. Shanmuga Sundaram (the father of the parties), while vesting absolute rights in the grandchildren (the three plaintiffs and one defendant)

Despite having only a life interest and no right to alienate the property, the father executed a settlement deed in 2011 (Ex.A-5/B-1) in favor of his son, the defendant/appellant

After the father’s death in 2014 and the mother’s death in 2020, the plaintiffs/respondents (the three sisters) filed a suit for partition seeking a 3/4th share and a declaration that the 2011 settlement deed was null and void

The trial court decreed in favor of the plaintiffs

The defendant appealed, arguing that the plaintiffs had consented to the father's settlement deed and that he had mutated revenue records in his name

1. Whether the settlement deed dated 08.04.2011 executed by V. Shanmuga Sundaram in favor of the appellant is null, void, and not binding on the respondents.

2. Whether the plaintiffs/respondents are entitled to partition and separate possession of a 3/4th share in the suit schedule property.

The Court applied the fundamental property law principle of nemo dat quod non habet, holding that a person cannot transfer a title better than what they possess

It further relied on the principles of the Hindu Succession Act, specifically Section 8, which governs the devolution of property for a male Hindu dying intestate

The Court also addressed the legal limitations of a "life interest" or "limited estate" created via a settlement deed, which restricts the beneficiary's right to alienate the property's corpus

The Court determined that the flow of title was clear and undisputed: the grandfather's registered settlement deed (Ex.B-3/A-4) specifically restricted the father, Shanmuga Sundaram, to a limited life interest for enjoyment only, while the absolute title was already vested in the grandchildren

Because the father never possessed absolute ownership or the power of alienation, the settlement deed he executed in 2011 in favor of the appellant was legally incompetent and void ab initio

The Court rejected the appellant's contention that the respondents' alleged knowledge or consent could validate the deed, ruling that such consent cannot confer title where the transferor had none

Furthermore, the mutation of revenue records and payment of taxes by the appellant did not establish absolute title against the lawful owners

Since the father had no right to alienate the property and subsequently died intestate, the Court affirmed that the property must be shared equally among all his legal heirs

The court held that the settlement deed dated 08.04.2011 (Ex.A-5) is null, void, and not binding on the respondents

Each of the four siblings—the three plaintiffs and the one defendant—is entitled to an undivided 1/4th share in the suit schedule property

The parties were directed to proceed with the actual division of property by metes and bounds during final decree proceedings