SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1968 Supreme(Mad) 21

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Mr. Justice M. Natesan, J.
Samiappa Gounder
Versus
Sivabalan
S.A. No. 1408 of 1962 and C.M.P. Nos. 10748 to 10750 of 1966.
Decided On : 11 January 1968

Advocates:
T.R. Ramachandran, for Appellants in S.A.No. 1408 of 1967.
A. Sundaram Iyer for K. Sarvabhauman and T. R. Mani, for Respondents 1 to 3.
S. Mohan, for Respondents 4 to 6.

Suit filed for partition between the brothers and alienees.

Headnote:Hindu Law-Suit for partition between brother and alienees-Compromise-Alienation of share by the members of same alienees-Son of one such member challenging the alienation made by his father-Sons of other members not necessary parties.

       

ORDER.-

Defendants 1 to 3 against whom the suit was decreed on appeal by the learned District Judge of Coimbatore reversing the dismissal of the suit by the learned Subordinate Judge of Coimbatore, have preferred this Second Appeal.

The facts leading up to the second appeal not now in dispute may be briefly set out. The suit properties along with other properties belonged to one Kandaswami Pillai who died in 1923 leaving four sons Sivagurunathan, Chithran, Thirumurthi and Jagadisan by his first wife and three sons Palaniswami, Saravanaperumal and Jagannathan by his second wife. With considerable properties he left also large debts. The eldest son Sivagurunatha as family manager dealt with the properties and incurred further debts. At the instance of a creditor Sivagurunatha was adjudged an insolvent in I.P. No. 43 of 1924 on the file of the District Court, Coimbatore, and on orders of the Court the entire properties of Kandaswami Pillai also vested in the Official Receiver. The suit properties formed part of an extent of 72.53 acres which vested in the Official Receiver and the entire extent were sold by him on 4th September, 1934, for the low figure of Rs. 800 the purchaser being no other than one Meenakshisundaram Pillai, the son-in-law of Kandaswami Pillai. Before the sale, one of the sons Jagannadhan had sent a notice pointing out that only the share of Sivagurunatha in the properties could vest in the Official Receiver and only his share in the properties should be sold. After the sale by the Official Receiver, Jagannadhan on 1st September, 1935, filed a suit O.S.No. 223 of 1935 on the file of the Sub -Court, Coimbatore, for partition and separate possession of his share in the properties of his father Kandaswami Pillai. In that suit Jagannathan challenged the Official Receiver’s sale of the properties contending that only the insolvent’s 1/7th share could be conveyed by the Official Receiver. His six brothers including the insolvent were made party defendants to the suit, besides the Official Receiver and various creditors. The purchaser of the properties, Meenakshisundaram Pillai, was impleaded as 35th defendant. Pending that suit Meenakshisundaram Pillai sold his right in the properties to one Valliammal, sister of defendants 1 and 2 in the suit out of which the present Second Appeal arises. In the partition suit O.S. No. 223 of 1935 excepting the insolvent brother, the other brothers filed written statements supporting the claim of the plaintiff and claiming their respective 1/7th share each in the properties. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court and the matter was brought up on an appeal in A.S. No. 158 of 1938 to this Court. Pending the appeal, Valliammal the purchaser of the properties from Meenakshisundaram Pillai, conveyed her rights in the properties to her brothers the present defendants 1 and 2. Thereupon the present defendants 1 and 2 were impleaded as party defendants in the pending appeal in this Court. A compromise was entered into therein between the present defendants 1 and 2 and the sons of Kandaswami Pillai excepting; the insolvent son. It was agreed that the present defendants 1 and 2 should take one half of the properties sold and the other half should be taken by the non-insolvent six sons of Kandaswami Pillai. Defendants 1 and 2 were also made liable for mesne profits in respect of the shares which they have to give up to the sons. Exhibit A-2 is the certified copy of the judgment in A.S. No. 158 of 1938 pursuant to the compromise and Exhibit B-1 dated 16th October, 1942, is the certified copy of the compromise decree passed by this Court in A.S. No. 158 of 1938.

Very shortly after the compromise on 30th December, 1942, the six sons who secured half the rights in the properties from the alienees, defendants 1 and 2 sold their entire rights to defendants 1 and 2 for Rs. 4,000. The sale is evidenced by Exhibit A-1, Registration copy of the sale deed. It is this sale whose validity is impugned in t




































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top