Back
2004 Supreme(Mad) 290
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM
Maruthachalam - Appellant
Versus
Balaraman & Others - Respondents
S.A.Nos.685 & 1477 of 1992 S.A.No.685/1992
Decided On : 26 February 2004
The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of heirs to ancestral property and the binding nature of agreements of sale on the co-parceners' shares.
Headnote:
Partition - Property Dispute - A.S.No.7/90, A.S.No.8/90 - Summary of Acts and Sections: Family Law - Partition Act, 1893 - Section 2, Section 3 - The court discussed the ancestral property rights and the entitlement of heirs to succeed to the property. It also considered the validity and binding nature of agreements of sale on the co-parceners' shares. The court's decision was influenced by the evidence of family partition and the binding nature of agreements of sale on the co-parceners' shares.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute over ancestral property and the entitlement of heirs to succeed to the property. The plaintiffs sought partition and recovery of possession, claiming their share in the family ancestral property.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the property originally belonged to the family and a partition had taken place, entitling the plaintiffs to their share. The court also held that the agreements of sale were binding on the co-parceners' shares, influencing the decision in favor of the plaintiffs.
Issues: The issues included the entitlement of heirs to the ancestral property, the validity of agreements of sale, and the burden of proof in the case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the evidence of family partition, the entitlement of heirs to the property, and the binding nature of agreements of sale on the co-parceners' shares.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the second appeals, affirming the entitlement of the plaintiffs to their share in the ancestral property and the binding nature of agreements of sale on the co-parceners' shares.
This judgment shall govern the two appeals. These two second appeals have arisen from the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore, made in A.S.No.7/90 dated 19.8.1991 wherein a common judgment was rendered. Those two appeals arises from the judgement of the Learned District Munsif, Coimbatore, made in O.S.No.2366 of 1989 and O.S.No.345/81 respectively in a suit for partition and recovery of possession.
2. The following are the necessary facts for the disposal of these appeals.
The plaintiffs and defendants 1 and 2 were the children of one Venkatachala Pannadi who died on 3.12.1979; that the said properties belong to the family ancestorally; that on his death the plaintiffs are entitled to 14/24th share and the rest to the defendants as the last succession; that the defendants 3 to 7 entered into different agreement of sale with Venkatachala Pannadi and the same would not be binding on the plaintiffs since they were not the parties to the same; that the defendants 3 to 7 pursuant to the said agreements have raised temporary sheds in the properties and they have also been in possession of the same; that under the said agreement, the defendants 3 to 7 could not get any right over the property since they have acted against the terms of agreement even during the life time of Venkatachala Pannadi; that since the defendants are making attempts to trespass into the said property, there arose a necessity for division of the property and also for recovery of possession.
3. The first defendant filed a written statement stating that he was entitled to 9/24th share and the second defendant is entitled to 1/24th share. The suit was vehemently contested by the other defendants. The case of defendants 4 to 6 and 9 was that during the life time of Venkatachala Pannadi, the property was exclusively belong to Venkatachala Pannadi; that he entered into different written agreement of sale; that the defendants agreed to convey 5 cents of land each and got Rs.200 advance from each of them and pursuant to the agreement, they got possession and they have raised construction therein; that they issued notice to the plaintiffs on the death of Venkatachala Pannadi but they evaded the same and have broughtforth the suit vexatiously. The 8th and 9th defendant filed written statement stating that they did not agree with the plaintiff's plea that they have trespassed into the property; that pursuant to an oral agreement of sale, they have got possession of the property and they have been there by raising construction therein and thus, they could not be vacated.
4. The trial Court framed necessary issues, tried the suit and dismissed the same. Aggrieved plaintiffs took it on appeal which ws numbered as A.S.Nos.7/90 and 8/90. Both the appeals were heard by the learned Subordinate Judge and a common judgement was rendered.
5. At the time of admission, the following substantial questions of law were formulated by this Court in S.A.No.685/92 and S.A.1477/92 respectively.
1.Whether the lower appellate Court is justified in reversing the judgment of the trial Court and whether there are any reasons in the judgment of the lower appellate Court?
2.Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to maintain the suit, when the suit properties were held to be the self acquired properties of Venkatachala Pannady, who parted away the properties prior to his death?
3.Whether the plaintiffs can succeed as the lacuna(if any) in the defence?
4.Whether the lower appellate Court correctly placed the burden of proof?
5. Whether the conclusion of the Court below that the suit property was the separate propertyof Venkatachala Pannadi is correct when admitedly he got the said property in a partition between him, his father and his brothers viz., ex.A.1; and
6. Whether the conclusion of the Court below that the agreements of sale in favour of defendants 4 to 7 were invalid and binding on the shares of the 1st plaintiff and the 1st defendant is correct when they are not parties to
