Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2006 Supreme(Mad) 1446

High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.D. DINAKARAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.P.S. JANARTHANA RAJA
Anna Marie Bernard Joseph & Others - Appellant
Versus
Lady Lourdomariammal alias Pappayammal & Others - Respondents
A.S.No.908 of 1991 and Review Appln.No.145 of 2003
Decided On : 22 June 2006

Advocates Appeared:For the Petitioners:G. Masilamani, Sr. counsel for M. Sriram, D. Rajendran & D. Balaraman, Advocates. For the Respondents:T.V. Ramanujam, Sr. counsel for T.V. Krishnamachari & V.K. Elangovan, R31 Meera Gupta, R. Subramanian, Advocates, R18, R33 – R36 T.R. Rajagopal, Sr.counsel for T.R. Rajaraman, R11 P.S. Raman, Sr. Counsel for D. Rajagopal & S. Annamalai, R16 Krishnasrinivas for M/s. Ramasubramaniam Associates, R. Bharanidharan, Adv.-Commissioner.

The court found the suit to be barred by limitation, vexatious, and an abuse of the court process, and dismissed the appeal and review application.

Headnote:
GENEALOGY - CHALLENGE OF WILLS - [SECTION 20 OF PONDICHERRY CIVIL COURTS ACT, 1966] - The suit was filed to challenge the wills of 1933 and 1935, claiming reversionary rights over the suit properties. The plaintiffs sought to prove their claim through a genealogy, release deeds, and a trust deed. However, the court found the genealogy to be unreliable, the release deeds to be champertous agreements, and the trust deed to be a creation lis pendens. The court also dismissed the suit as barred by limitation, as the challenge to the wills was made after 30 years from the date of death of the testator. The court further noted that the suit was vexatious and an abuse of the court process, and awarded no costs due to the age and health of the plaintiff. The appeal and review application were both dismissed.
Fact of the Case:

The plaintiffs filed a suit to challenge the wills of 1933 and 1935, claiming reversionary rights over the suit properties. The plaintiffs sought to prove their claim through a genealogy, release deeds, and a trust deed. However, the court found the genealogy to be unreliable, the release deeds to be champertous agreements, and the trust deed to be a creation lis pendens. The court also dismissed the suit as barred by limitation, as the challenge to the wills was made after 30 years from the date of death of the testator. The court further noted that the suit was vexatious and an abuse of the court process, and awarded no costs due to the age and health of the plaintiff.
Issues: The issues included the validity of the suit, the admissibility of the genealogy, the reliability of the release deeds, and the legal standing of the trust deed.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found the genealogy to be unreliable, the release deeds to be champertous agreements, and the trust deed to be a creation lis pendens. The court also dismissed the suit as barred by limitation, as the challenge to the wills was made after 30 years from the date of death of the testator. The court further noted that the suit was vexatious and an abuse of the court process.
Final Decision: The appeal and review application were both dismissed.

Judgment :-

(Appeal filed against the judgment and decree dated 9.5.1991 in O.S.No.2 of 1978 on the file of Principal District Judge, Pondicherry.)

P.D. Dinakaran, J.

I. JUDGMENT & DECREE UNDER APPEAL

This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 9.5.1991 made in O.S.No.2 of 1978 on the file of Principal District Judge, Pondicherry by which the suit filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed.

1.1. For sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as arrayed in the plaint.

II.CASE OF THE PLAINTIFFS

2. The case of the plaintiffs is, in brief, as follows:-

2.1. One Arockiam was the descendant of the Royal family of Pallavas. He left the fortress of Anantal at Karthanpeth, also known as Korthampeth, which was in a state of ruin, in order to come and settle at Pondicherry. At that time, he was provided with gold jewels possessed by him and his brothers. Then, he acquired properties.

2.2. His fifth degree descendant, Louis Aroquiassamy Mudaliar made a mystic will dated 21.1.1933 which was opened by the President of the Court on 8.7.1935 and ordered to be deposited in the Office of Mr.Vandjilinga Saminadin, Notary.

2.3. The said Louis Aroquiassamy Mudaliar died without issues. Some of the brothers of Arockiam had issues, who got some descendants and at present, they are 143 in number.

2.4. Bernard Joseph, husband of the plaintiff Anna Marie, centralised into his hands the rights of all collaterals of Louis Aroquiassamy Mudaliar by obtaining transfer of rights from them and he exercised his rights on the estate of Louis Gnana Aroquiassamy Mudaliar.

2.5. Bernard Joseph had no intention to appropriate the properties for himself, but he intended to allot an amount of compensation to each and every collateral, besides creating a trust called, "Asoka Maurya and Pallava Historical Trust".

2.6. With regard to Pallava Naick family, an article, "Pallava naicks of Korthampeth" was written by Dr.M.Aroquiassamy and approved by the Royal Asiatic Society of Calcutta where under the family of Arockiam is traced to the Pallava Naick of Korthampet.

2.7. The second will executed by Louis Gnana Aroquiassamy Mudaliar dated 9.2.1935 was registered and probated and letters of administration was granted by the District Court at Cuddalore in O.S.No.11 of 1936. But, the mystic will dated 21.1.1933 executed by him is a false document. The defendants suppressed the truth and were asserting right on the basis of the false will. However, the will dated 9.2.1935 determines the rights between the parties and supersedes the earlier mystic will dated 21.1.1933.

2.8. Papayee ammal (first defendant) never got any absolute right in the suit properties left by Louis Gnana Aroquiassamy Mudaliar, but she got only a life interest or limited interest as per will dated 9.2.1935.

2.9. The said Papayee ammal died on 23.6.1965 and other legatees predeceased her. Hence, the reversioners of Louis Gnana Aroquiassamy Mudaliar have a clear and absolute right to the suit properties, which are now in the hands of the plaintiffs.

2.10. The mystic will dated 21.1.1933 deposited on 12.7.1935 in the office of Vandjilinga Saminadin is null and void. The second defendant, who had no right, disposed of the properties. The first defendant, who had the right only over the usufructs, also sold the properties. The transfer deeds and sale deeds must be declared void. The special bequests made in favour of other defendants should also be declared null.

2.11. The State Bank of India is added as a party since the jewels which were taken inventory by the Court Commissioner have been kept in safe locker pending suit.

2.12. The Director of Archaeological Survey of India is also added as necessary party for enabling the court to consider the historical events arising out of the acquisition of suit properties.

2.13. Hence, the suit was filed with the following prayer:-

(i) for declaration that the mystic will dated 21.1.1933 said to have been executed by Louis Gnana Aroquiassamy on behalf of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis