Back
2011 Supreme(Mad) 673
High Court of Judicature at Madras
G. RAJASURIA
S. Sarangapani
Versus
M. Arivukodi
S.A.No.449 of 2008 & M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2009
Decided on : 09-02-2011
For the Appellant:A. Venkatesan, Advocate.
For the Respondent:S.K. Rakhunathan, Advocate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988, and the determination of the existence of a fiduciary relationship between the plaintiff and his father Singara Gounder.
Headnote:
Benami Transaction - Property Dispute - The Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 - 3, 4 - The court held that the suit property was the absolute property of Singara Gounder and not the property of the plaintiff held benami in the name of his father. The evidence tendered in the case led to the inference that the Sale Deed was not hit by the Rule of non-est factum. The suit was not bad for non-joinder of V.K.Mani, the respondent's husband. There was no fiduciary relationship existed between the plaintiff and his father Singara Gounder relating to the holding and maintenance of the suit property.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit seeking declaration of title to a property and delivery of vacant possession. The trial Court dismissed the suit, and the appeal was also dismissed by the appellate Court. The plaintiff filed a second appeal challenging the judgments of the Courts below on various grounds, including the applicability of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the suit property was the absolute property of Singara Gounder and not held benami in the name of the plaintiff's father. The evidence tendered in the case led to the inference that the Sale Deed was not hit by the Rule of non-est factum. The suit was not bad for non-joinder of V.K.Mani, the respondent's husband. There was no fiduciary relationship existed between the plaintiff and his father Singara Gounder relating to the holding and maintenance of the suit property.
Issues: The substantial questions of law suggested in the memorandum of grounds of second appeal included the correctness of the judgments of the Courts below, the validity of the Sale Deed, the non-joinder of parties, and the existence of a fiduciary relationship between the plaintiff and his father.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the evidence led to the inference that the suit property was the absolute property of Singara Gounder and not held benami in the name of the plaintiff's father. The Sale Deed was not hit by the Rule of non-est factum. The suit was not bad for non-joinder of V.K.Mani, the respondent's husband. There was no fiduciary relationship existed between the plaintiff and his father Singara Gounder relating to the holding and maintenance of the suit property.
Final Decision: The second appeal was dismissed, and there was no order as to costs.
1. This second appeal is filed by the plaintiff, inveighing the judgement and decree dated 23.11.2007 passed by the Principal Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore, in A.S.No.99 of 2006 confirming the judgment and decree dated 14.11.2006 passed by the Principal District Munsif, Cuddalore, in O.S.No.587 of 2004, which was filed for declaration and delivery of vacant possession of the suit property.
2. The parties, for the sake of convenience, are referred to here under according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court.
3. The epitome and the long and short of the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this second appeal would run thus:
(a) The plaintiff, who is the appellant herein, filed the suit seeking the following relief:
"to pass a judgement and decree
a)for declaration of the plaintiff's title to the property agricultural land of an extent of 78 cents bearing T.S.No.2005/4 and 2008 in Cuddalore Registration District, Cuddalore Taluk and Sub Registration Office Block No.33, 5th Division, Ward No.7 morefully described in the schedule hereunder;
b) directing by a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant, her men, agents, servants or any other person or persons claiming through her from alienating or otherwise encumbering the suit property;
e) for future mesne profits from defendant at the rate of Rs.500/- p.a.from date of plaint till date of delivery of vacant possession of suit property;
f) for costs of the suit." (extracted as such)
(b) The defendant resisted the suit by filing written statement.
(c) Whereupon the trial Court framed the issues. The plaintiff on his side examined himself as P.W.1 along with P.W.2 and marked Ex.A1 to A14. On the defendant's side, the defendant's husband was examined as D.W.1 along with D.W.2 and D.W.3 and marked Exs.B1 to B5.
(d) Ultimately, the trial Court dismissed the suit, as against which, the appeal was filed for nothing but to be dismissed by the appellate Court, confirming the judgement and decree of the trial Court.
4. Challenging and impugning the judgements and decrees of the Courts below, this second appeal has been filed on various grounds, inter alia, thus:
(i) The Courts below failed to take note of the fact that the fund for purchasing the suit property flowed from the plaintiff, being the elder son of Singara Gounder, in whose name the property was purchased out of respect for him, however, the Courts below felt as though Singara Gounder himself purchased the suit property even though he had no source of income to purchase it.
(ii) Throwing to winds the fiduciary relationship between Singara Gounder and his son-the plaintiff herein, the former sold the suit property in favour of the defendant and thereby, deprived the plaintiff of his legitimate right over it.
(iii) The Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case for the reason that if fiduciary relationship is existing, as in this case, the question of invoking the prohibition under the said Act would not arise; the brother of the plaintiff was made to attest the Sale Deed, but he was not examined to prove the real nature of the transaction, by the defendant.
5. Accordingly, in the memorandum of grounds of second appeal, the following substantial questions of law are found suggested:
"a) Whether the judgements of courts below that the suit property is the absolute property of Singara Gounder and not the property of the plaintiff held benami in the name of his father is legally correct and is not vitiated by misreading of material evidence, non reference to crucial evidence and admissions on the side of the respondent?
b) Whether the evidence tendered in the case did not lead to the inference that Ex.A8 = Ex.B1 is legally invalid and is hit by the Rule of non-est factum.
c) Whether the lower Court is right in law in coming to a conclusion that the suit is
