High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.C. ARUMUGAPERUMAL ADITYAN
Jeyapal & Another
Versus
Veerappan & Others
S.A.No.724 of 1997
Decided On : 13-03-2007
Joint Family Property - Property purchased under the joint exertion of the three brothers Govinda Koundar, Sanjivaraya Koundar and Thandvaraya Koundar - 1940 Sale Deed - Oral Partition - Settlement Deed - Court Auction Purchase - Revocation of Settlement Deed - Joint Family Property vs. Self-acquired Property
Fact of the Case:
The appeal is against the decree and judgment in a property dispute. The plaintiffs claimed joint family ownership of the suit property, while the defendants contested the claim, asserting self-acquired property rights.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the suit property was self-acquired by Sanjivaraya Koundar and not joint family property. The settlement deed in favor of D2 was revoked, and the property was deemed self-acquired, leading to the dismissal of the suit.
Issues: The main issues revolved around the nature of the suit property, whether it was joint family property or self-acquired property, and the validity of the settlement deed and its revocation.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the property was self-acquired by Sanjivaraya Koundar and not joint family property, based on the evidence of the 1940 sale deed, oral partition, settlement deed, and court auction purchase. The revocation of the settlement deed further supported the finding of self-acquired property.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the decree and judgment in A.S.No.39/1994 were set aside, and the suit in O.S.No.183 of 1991 was dismissed.
This appeal has been preferred against the decree and judgment in A.S.No.39 of 1994 on the file of the Court of Principal Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore dated 12. 1997. The defendant 1 & 3, who have lost the defence before the Courts below, are the appellants herein.
2. The averments in the plaint relevant for the purpose of deciding this appeal in brief are as follows:
2(a) One Govdinda Koundar, Sanjivaraya Koundar and Thandavaraya Koundar were brothers. They owned dry lands measuring 1 acre 28 cents and during their lifetime they divided the said property equally and thus Snajivaraya Koundar got the middle 1/3rd towards his share. Out of the above said three persons Govinda Koundar died leaving behind one Subbaraya Koundar and Kasi Koundar as his sons. Sanjivaraya Koundar had two wives viz. Sornammal and Muniammal. The plaintiffs 1 to 3 are the sons born to Sornammal who is 7th plaintiff. The plaintiffs 4 to 6 and one Kirshnammal are the children born to Muniammal, who died about 3 years back.
2(b) The said middle 1/3rd share out of 1.28 cents, i.e., the middle 42 2/3 cents, was being enjoyed by the said Sanjivaraya Koundar and his sons as their joint family property. Out of the same they sold the northern 21 3/8 cents in favour of one Subramania Koundar under a registered sale deed dated 15. 1972 to which the said Sanjiviraya Koundar and his sons viz. Veerappa Koundar, Sivakumar, Jayamurthi and Krishnamurthi, who are plaintiffs 1, 3 and 4 and 2nd defendant respectively, were parties. The 2nd plaintiff Balakirshnan did not join as he was an in-patient then in the C.M.C. Vellore. The 5th plaintiff was not born then. The remaining extent ie. The southern 21 1/3 cents out of the middle 42 2/3 cents is the suit property in this suit. This said property belongs to the joint family of Sanjivaraya Koundar and his sons and each are entitled to 1/7th share.
2(c) The said Sanjivaraya Koundar died on 111. 1990 intestate leaving behind his first wife Sornammal and his children, the other plaintiffs, to succeed to his interest, which is 1/7th of the suit property. The remaining extent belong to plaintiffs 1 to 5 and 2nd defendant and they are in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit property.
2(d) The 1st defendant is now attempting to take forcible possession of the suit property from the plaintiffs claiming to have purchased the entire property on 31.01.1991. He seems to put forward false title under 2nd defendant. The 2nd defendant is only a co-sharer and he is not entitled to dispose of the entire property. The plaintiffs deny the truth, validity and due attestation of the sale deed in favour of the 1st defendant. Even if it is true, it is not valid and it cannot convey title to the entire property to the 1st defendant. At best, as a purchaser from a coparcenar, he has to file a suit for partition. He is not entitled to take forcible possession of the suit property which he is trying to do from the first week of February 1991. So this suit is laid for declaration that the suit property belongs to plaintiffs and 2nd defendant comprising a joint family and for injunction restraining the 1st defendant from interfering with their possession.
3. The 1st defendant in his written statement would contend as follows:-
The 1st defendant has no interest in respect of the suit property. The 1st defendant is not a necessary party to the suit. Govinda Koundar, Sanjivaraya Kounder and Thandavaraya Koundar are the brothers. Sanjivaraya Kounder was allotted 0.42 cents. The 1st defendant is not aware of the sale deed executed by the Sanjivaraya Koundar and 4 others in favour of Subramaniya Koundar on 15. 1972. The remaining 21 3/8 cents belongs to Sanjivaraya Koundar alone. Sanjivaraya Koundar had planted 20 coconut saplings in the suit land. Plaintiffs 1 to 3 are the children of Sanjivaraya Koundar born through his first wife Sornammal and D4 to D6 and D2 are the children of Sanjivaraya Kounder born through his second wife Muniyammal. T
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.