Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.A. BOBDE, L. NAGESWARA RAO, JJ.
L. Ponnayal @ Lakshmi Karuppannan (Dead) – APPELLANT(S)
Versus
Karuppannan (Dead) Thr. L.R. Sengoda Gounder & Anr. – RESPONDENT(S)
Civil Appeal Nos.9558-9559 of 2018 (Arising out of Special Leave Petitions (C) Nos.9811-12 of 2017)
Decided On : 17-09-2018
(b) Administration of justice – Legal Assistance – Appellant-in-person knowing only Tamil – Refusing assistance of a senior Advocate well versed in Tamil appointed by Supreme Court – Appellant later requesting for a translator in Court – Request rejected. (Para 2)
(c) Practice and procedure – Civil Suits are decided on the basis of pleadings and the issues framed – Parties to the Suit cannot be permitted to travel beyond the pleadings. (Para 11)
(1987) 2 SCC 555; AIR 1956 SC 231 – Relied upon
(d) Administration of justice – Approbation and reprobation – Appellant claiming her right on the basis of registered partition deed – Cannot be permitted to say that she is not bound by the said partition deed. (Para 12)
(e) Property law – Partition and compromise – Appellant not fulfilling conditions in the compromise decree to transfer the property in her favour – Property sold to defendant 1 – Appellant challenging the sale deed on ground of unsoundness of mind of the vendor and manipulation of the sale deed by defendant 1 – High Court rightly holding that appellant lost her right after the stipulated time in the compromise decree and so could not challenge the sale deed, that too after inordinate delay. (Para 13)
(f) Property law – A person can settle the property falling in his share to anybody. (Para 14)
Facts of the case:
The Appellant and her mother filed a Civil Suit for Partition and separate possession which was dismissed by the Subordinate Judge, Sankagiri. The High Court affirmed the judgment and decree of trial court. The Appellant filed a Review Application which was rejected by the High Court.
Finding of the Court:
Appellant has lost her right after expiry of stipulated period in the compromised decree.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Key Points: - The judgment holds that civil suits are decided on pleadings and framed issues; parties cannot travel beyond pleadings. (!) - It holds that a person cannot claim rights under a registered partition deed while also challenging that partition, and that a settlement by a progenitor in favor of a grandchild can be binding. (!) (!) - It upholds that failure to comply with a compromise decree conditions can bar later challenges to related sale/transfer deeds. (!) (!) - It notes that in-person litigants may be required to use language assistance and that delays in filing SLPs can be condoned at the court’s discretion. (!) - The High Court’s findings on adverse possession and the binding effect of partition and settlement deeds were not interfered with. (!) (!) (!)
JUDGMENT
L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.
Leave granted.
1. The Appellant and her mother filed a Civil Suit for Partition and separate possession which was dismissed by the Subordinate Judge, Sankagiri. The High Court affirmed the judgment and decree of trial court. The Appellant filed a Review Application which was rejected by the High Court. Aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court in the first Appeal and the Review Application, the Appellant has approached this Court.
2. On 15th November, 2016, a request was made by the Appellant to discharge A. Lakshminarayanan, the learned Advocate-on-Record who filed the above Appeals. The said Advocate-on-Record was discharged and the matter was listed for further hearing. After several adjournments, notice was issued on 28th March, 2017 after condoning the delay of 2088 days in filing the Special Leave Petition against the judgment in first Appeal and 1405 days in filing the Special Leave Petition from the judgment in Review Application. As the Appellant in-person was conversant only in Tamil language, we requested Mrs. V. Mohna, Ld. Senior Advocate to appear for the Appellant in-person. Later, Mrs. V. Mohna, Ld. Senior Advocate informed us that the Appellant in-person is not willing to take her assistance. The Appellant in-person who was present in the Court on 4th September, 2018 requested that she does not want Mrs. V. Mohna to appear for her. We discharged Mrs. V. Mohna, Ld. Senior Counsel from the case. The Appellant in-person insisted on making submissions in Tamil language and she requested for a translator. We declined the request of the Appellant in-person who had not utilized the opportunity of having the services of a Senior Advocate who is well-versed with Tamil language. We gave opportunity to the parties to submit their written submissions, if any, within one week from 4th September, 2018 and reserved the matter for judgment.
3. Appavu Gounder had two sons namely Athappa Gounder and Karuppannan Gounder. Athappa Gounder was married to Kandayi (Plaintiff No.2). The Appellant (Plaintiff No.1) is the daughter of Athappa Gounder and Kandayi. Karuppannan is Defendant No.1 in the suit and his son Sengoda Gounder is Defendant No.2. Defendant No.3 Komarasamy Gounder is the purchaser of a part of ‘A’ schedule property. As per the plaint, there was a registered Partition Deed on 22nd April, 1948 between the branches of Appavu Gounder and Pavayee and the plaint ‘A’ schedule properties fell to the share of Appavu Gounder and his two sons. The Appellant along with her mother claimed a share in the ‘A’ schedule properties.
4. Hereinafter, the parties will be referred to as arrayed in the plaint in O.S. No.130 of 1987 before the Subordinate Judge, Sankagiri. The case of the Plaintiff No.1 is that she was the only surviving heir of Athappa Gounder who during his lifetime suffered from mental illness and was under the control of his father Appavu Gounder. Athappa Gounder was living with his brother Karuppannan after the death of his father. Due to the constant harassment of her husband, Plaintiff No.2 had no other alternative except to shift to her matrimonial home at Veppamarathupatti, Edappady. It was stated in the plaint that Defendant No.1, taking advantage of the lunacy of Athappa Gounder, created a Sale Deed dated 15th September, 1949 by which his properties were transferred to Defendant No.1. The Settlement Deed dated 6th December, 1958 executed by Appavu Gounder in favour of Defendant No.2-Sengoda Gounder was seriously disputed by the Plaintiffs. The sale of a portion of the ‘A’ schedule property to Defendant No.3 by registered Sale Deed dated 9th November, 1964 was illegal and voidaccording to the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs further contended that a rig along with a support lorry which are shown as ‘B’ schedule property in the plaint were purchased by Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 from the income that was derived from ‘A’ schedule property. As the Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 were not agreeing for a par
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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
