Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, A.K. SIKRI, JJ.
Gowri – Appellant
Vs.
Shanthi and ANR. – Respondents
[Civil Appeal No. 4245 / 2014 arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 259 of 2012]
Decided On : 31-03-2014
Administration of Justice – Judicial Review – Property rights – Owner of property dying – Appellant, her niece, impleaded as Legal Representative – High Court directing the parties to file fresh suit for title – Instead High Court ought to have examined whether appellant was competent to execute the decree of eviction on behalf of the deceased owner – Though respondents could not challenge the ownership of the deceased owner, after her death they could claim inheritance along with the appellant being her sisters – For execution of the decree of eviction it would be required to determine who are the successors-in-interest of the deceased owner – More so when the deceased owner had executed three wills – Question left open. (Para 17, 18)
Facts of the case:
One Chidambaram had one son, Sundaramurthy and one daughter namely Jagdambal. He was having leasehold rights over one property owned by one Trust, managing a temple. Chidambaram had constructed superstructure upon the property with his own funds and was the owner thereof. He died much before year 1956 and as per the Hindu Law of succession prevalent at that time, on his death the superstructure along with leasehold rights over the suit property vested with his son Mr. Sundaramurthy.
Sundaramurthy executed a Settlement Deed so as to transfer the superstructure along with the lease hold rights over the property in favour of his sister Jagadambal (the original plaintiff). Subsequently, Jagadambal purchased the suit property from the temple authorities thereby becoming the undisputed owner of the said property.
Jagadambal permitted the respondents, the daughters of Sundaramurthy, to reside in the front portion of the suit property.
Behaviour of the respondents changed subsequent to moving into the suit property and they began to interfere and quarrel with the tenants, apart from abusing Jagadambal, as a result of which Jagadambal was forced to move out and stay with the appellant.
Finally Jagadambal filed mandatory injunction suit for possession i.e. O.S. No. 15814 of 1996 against the respondents.
During the pendency of the suit, the respondents also filed suit for partition (i.e. O.S. No. 8637 of 1998).
The Trial Court decreed O.S. NO. 15814 of 1996 in favour of Jagadambal entitling her to the relief of mandatory injunction to evict the respondents from the suit property.
O.S. No. 8637 of 1988 filed by the respondents was dismissed by the Trial Court.
Respondents preferred A.S. No. 1173 of 2004 and A.S. No. 1175 of 2004.
During the pendency of the aforesaid appeals, Jagadambal died.
The Appellant was impleaded as the sole legal heir of the deceased Jagadambal.
A.S. No. 1173/2004 was dismissed by the High Court.
A.S. NO. 1175 of 2004 filed by the respondents against the decree passed by the Trial Court in the suit filed by Jagadambal has been partly allowed by the High Court.
Finding of the Court:
Having held that the deceased owner was the absolute owner of the suit property, High Court should not have allowed, even partly, the suit by respondents for inheritance.
Instead, High Court should have examined competency of appellant to execute the decree of eviction.
The question of succession after death of the owner should also have been looked into.
Judgment :
A.K. SIKRI, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Before we narrate the facts, we trace out below the relationship between the parties that would make it easier to understand the dispute which has arisen between them and is the subject matter of the present appeal.
CHIDAMBARAM
3. As is clear from the above, Chidambaram was the grandfather of the appellant and the two respondents. The appellant and the two respondents i.e. all three of them are the daughters of Mr. C.P. Sundaramurthy.
4. Chidambaram had one son, viz. Sundaramurthy and one daughter namely Jagdambal. Admittedly, Chidambaram was having leasehold rights over one property situated in Door No. 11(Old No. 10) Karaneeswarar Koil Garden, 2nd Street, Saidapet, Chennai (herein after referred to as the 'Suit Property'). The owner of the said property was one Trust, managing a temple, which had given the suit land on lease. However, Mr. Chidambaram had constructed superstructure thereupon with his own funds and was the owner thereof. He died much before year 1956 and as per the Hindu Law succession prevalent at that time, on his death the superstructure along with leasehold rights over the suit property vested with his son Mr. Sundaramurthy.
5. According to the appellant, Sundaramurthy executed a Settlement Deed so as to transfer the superstructure along with the lease hold rights over the property in favour of his sister Jagadambal (the original plaintiff). Subsequently, Jagadambal purchased the suit property from the temple authorities thereby becoming the undisputed owner of the said property. Jagadambal, being an old widow and without any issues, permitted the respondents, who were daughters of Sundaramurthy, to reside in the front portion of the suit property. Prior to this, the respondents were living in their respective matrimonial homes. The behaviour of the respondents changed subsequent to moving into the suit property and they began to interfere and quarrel with the tenants, apart from abusing Jagadambal, as a result of which Jagadambal was forced to move out and stay with the appellant herein.
6. Finally, being fed up with the behaviour of the respondents, Jagadambal called upon the respondents to vacate the suit property with all their belongings, vide legal notice dated 9.11.1995. The respondents replied to the said legal notice refuting the claim of Jagadambal.
7. On the aforesaid averments, Jagadambal filed mandatory injunction suit for possession i.e. O.S. No. 15814 of 1996 against the respondents before the City Civil Court, Chennai.
8. This suit was contested by the respondents on the ground that they had inherited 2/3rd of the suit property, being legal heirs of Sundaramurthy and the so called Settlement Deed executed by Sundaramurthy to transfer the suit property in favour of his sister was a sham document. During the pendency of the aforesaid suit, the respondents also filed suit for partition (i.e. O.S. No. 8637 of 1998) before the City Civil Court, Chennai stating that the suit property was ancestral property of their father Sundaramurthy and as legal heirs they had one-third share each in this property and the other one third belonged to the appellant, being the third daughter.
9. Both the suits were decided by the Trial Court vide judgments dated 10.11.2003. The Trial Court was pleased to decree O.S. NO. 15814 of 1996 in favour of Jagadambal entitling her to the relief of mandatory injunction to evict the respondents from the suit property. It was, inter alia, held that the entire right in respect of the suit property devolved on Jagadambal through the Settlement Deed dated 25.4.1949 and the sale deed dated 31.3.1950; that the suit property is owned by Jagadambal alone; that the respondents were staying in the front portion as per the permission given by Jagadambal and due to differences that arose between them, notice was sent to the respondents revoking the permission and, therefore, the respondents were liable to vacate the suit property.
10. In so far as Sui
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
