Back
2002 Supreme(Mad) 869
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. SAMPATH
Syed Hussainudeen (Died) & Another - Appellant
Versus
Syed Ghouse & Others - Respondents
S.A.No.1663 of 1989 and S.A.No.80 of 1990
Decided On : 30 August 2002
The main legal principle established in the judgment is the application of estoppel under Section 115 of the Evidence Act to bar the plaintiffs from claiming a share in the suit property based on their conduct in accepting the settlement deed (Ex.C-1).
Headnote:
Estoppel - Property Dispute - Evidence Act - [Ex.C-1, Section 115 of the Evidence Act, GULAM ABBAS VS. HAJI KAYYAM ALI AND OTHERS (AIR 1973 SC 554)]
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a property dispute arising from a suit for partition and permanent injunction. The plaintiffs claimed their share in the suit property, while the defendants contested the claim, alleging fraud and misrepresentation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the suit property had been earmarked for the first defendant in a settlement deed (Ex.C-1) and that the plaintiffs' conduct indicated their acceptance of the settlement. The court also determined that the first defendant was not blind as claimed, and had knowingly executed a sale deed in favor of the second defendant.
Issues: The main issues revolved around the validity of the settlement deed, the plaintiffs' right to claim a share in the property, and the alleged fraud and misrepresentation in the execution of the sale deed.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied Section 115 of the Evidence Act and the principle of estoppel to hold that the plaintiffs were estopped from claiming a share in the suit property due to their conduct in accepting the settlement. Additionally, the court found that the first defendant had knowingly executed the sale deed, dismissing the claim of fraud and misrepresentation.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the second appeals, upholding the lower courts' decisions and ruling against the appellants.
S.A.No.1663/89 arises out of A.S.No.243/88 on the file of the First Additional District Judge, Tiruchirapalli, which arose out of O.S.No.111/84 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirapalli.
2. S.A.No.80/90 arises out of A.S.No.305/88 on the file of the First Additional District Judge, Tiruchirapalli, filed against O.S.No.191/82 on the file of the Subordinate Judge,
Tiruchirapalli. There was a joint trial and common judgment both in the suits as well as in the appeals.
3. The parties will be referred to as per their rank in O.S.No.191/82.
4. The suits have arisen under the following circumstances:
The first plaintiff in O.S.No.191/82 is the mother of plaintiffs 2 and 3 and the first defendant. All the three plaintiffs filed the suit for partition against the first defendant and one Syed Ghouse, alleging as follows:
The suit property belonged to Syed Peer Saheb, husband of the first plaintiff and father of the other plaintiffs and the first defendant. He died on 25-5-1965 leaving behind him the first plaintiff and the first defendant to inherit his properties. The first plaintiff became entitled to 2/16th share. Plaintiffs 2 and 3 became entitled to 3-1/2 by 16 shares each, while the first defendant became entitled to 9/16th share. The plaintiffs and the first defendant are co-owners and tenants in common. The first defendant being the male member, taxes were allowed to be levied in his name. Plaintiffs 2 and 3 and the first defendant obtained loan from Tiruchirapalli Irudayapuram Co-operative Credit Bank by hypothecating the suit property and the loan was discharged by the plaintiffs. The first defendant is living separately whereas the plaintiffs are residing in the suit property. The first defendant, who had defective eye sight became totally blind since 1974. Taking advantage of the same, the second defendant appears to have created some fictitious document with the intention of swallowing the suit property. He is threatening to throw away the plaintiffs from the suit property. In such circumstances, the suit has been filed for partition of the suit property and for permanent injunction to restrain the second defendant and his men from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property by the plaintiffs.
5. The first defendant supported the case of the plaintiffs and further stated as follows:
The second defendant deceived him and got a document executed in his favour in respect of the same property and filed a separate suit for setting aside the said document. The first defendant has no objection for passing of a decree for partition and for allotment of the shares of the respective parties.
6. The second defendant filed his written statement contending inter alia as follows:
The plaintiffs have no right for partition and allotment of any share in their favour and they are not in possession of the suit property in their own right. The suit property belonged to the first defendant exclusively. The second defendant is a bona fide purchaser for value of the suit property. He gave a power of attorney in favour of the first defendant on 20-3-1982 for management of the suit property and for other purposes. Since he had abused the power given to him, the second defendant cancelled the power. The husband of the second plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property only as a tenant. The second defendant issued a notice to him terminating the tenancy and calling upon him to vacate the suit property. The plaintiffs had been ill-advised to file the suit for partition. The second defendant had not played any fraud on the first defendant and got a sale deed executed in his favour. The sale deed is true and binding on the plaintiffs as well. The suit property was exclusively allotted to the first defendant's share and it was retained by him. The first defendant's father had executed a settlement deed on 4-4-1965, which would show that the suit property had been ear-marked only for the bene
