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

2011 Supreme(Mad) 588

High Court of Judicature at Madras
R. MALA
Sengoda Goundar
Versus
Arunachalam & Another
Appeal Suit No.385 of 2008
Decided on : 03-02-2011

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant:N. Srinivasan, Advocate.
For the Respondents: R1 & R2 – Served.

The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of sufficient evidence to prove oral partition and will in property disputes.

Headnote:

oral partition - Property Dispute - Ex.A6, Ex.A10, Ex.A14, Ex.A15, Ex.A16, Ex.A17, Ex.A18, Exs.B22, B23 - The court dismissed the suit for declaration of 'A' schedule properties and partition of 'B' schedule properties. The appellant/plaintiff is entitled to a preliminary decree of partition of = share in 'A' schedule properties.

Fact of the Case:

The plaintiff and the first defendant, who are brothers, were in a property dispute over 'A' and 'B' schedule properties. The plaintiff sought declaration of 'A' schedule properties and partition of 'A' and 'B' schedule properties, and permanent injunction in respect of 'C' schedule properties. The trial court dismissed the suit, leading to the present appeal.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove the oral partition in the year 1982 and the will dated 19.01.1995. The court also dismissed the suit in respect of 'B' and 'C' schedule properties. However, the court granted a preliminary decree of partition of = share in 'A' schedule properties to the appellant/plaintiff.

Issues: The issues included the validity of the will, proof of oral partition, status of 'B' schedule properties, dismissal of the suit in respect of 'C' schedule properties, and grant of partition in respect of 'A' and 'B' schedule properties.

Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove the oral partition and the will, leading to the dismissal of the suit in respect of 'A' and 'B' schedule properties. However, the court granted a preliminary decree of partition of = share in 'A' schedule properties to the appellant/plaintiff.

Final Decision: The First Appeal was partly allowed, and the appellant/plaintiff was granted a preliminary decree of partition of = share in 'A' schedule properties. The suit in respect of 'B' and 'C' schedule properties was dismissed.

JUDGMENT :-

1. This appeal has been arising out of the judgment and decree dated 12.10.2007 made in O.S.No.40 of 2005, on the file of the Additional District Court, Fast Track Court No.II, Salem.

2. The averments made in the plaint are as follows:

(i) The plaintiff and the first defendant are own brothers. The second defendant is the wife of the first defendant. 'A' schedule properties are belonging to the plaintiff and 'B' schedule properties are belonging to the first defendant. Their father Kandappa Goundar allotted above said properties to the plaintiff and the first defendant in an oral partition, which was effected in the joint family in the year 1982. For past 23 years, the plaintiff and the first defendant are in possession and enjoyment of their respective shares separately in their own right without any let or hindrance. Both the parties are paying kisths to their respective shares separately.

(ii) After partition, the plaintiff, out of his own funds, has purchased 'C' schedule properties along with one Kandasamy Goundar, son of Ramasamy Goundar on 11.10.1984. He alone is in possession and enjoyment of his = share in his own right by paying kisths and mutation of revenue records.

(iii) Now the first defendant is making false claims and started to cause disturbance to the plaintiff in respect of his shares in 'A' schedule properties as against the family arrangements made in the year 1982. So the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit for declaration of 'A' schedule properties and in the alternative for general partition of 'A' and 'B' schedule properties and also for permanent injunction in respect of his own 'C' schedule properties.

(iv) Originally, 'A' and 'B' schedule properties are belonging to one Ramaiya Goundar. He had two sons, one is Kandappa Goundar, father of the plaintiff and the first defendant and another one is Sengoda Goundar. After the death of Ramaiya Goundar, his two sons Kandappa Goundar and Sengoda Goundar divided the properties equally. Kandappa Goundar has purchased some properties under a registered sale deed dated 20.02.1957 on behalf of joint family i.e. portion of the 'A' schedule properties. 'B' schedule properties were purchased out of the joint family nucleus by the first defendant and the first defendant has played fraud in obtaining the sale deeds. The first defendant vindictively and fraudulently had taken the sale deeds one in his name and another in the name of his wife Sellammal, the second defendant. Then only, a difference of opinion arose and the partition has been effected. 'A' schedule properties are allotted to the plaintiff and 'B' schedule properties purchased in the name of the first defendant and the second defendant are allotted to the shares of the first defendant. Their father Kandappa Goundar has not taken any share in the properties.

(v) Prior to partition in the year 1982, the first defendant resided only in the joint family and doing agricultural operations only. He has no individual income at any point of time to purchase the property. After the partition, due to the controversy, the defendants shifted their family to Manivailunthan village, Athur and residing permanently. Right from 1982, there is no joint family and joint family properties belonging to Kandappa Goundar. 'A' schedule properties are in possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff. 'B' schedule properties are in possession and enjoyment of the first defendant and they are paying kisths separately to their respective shares.

(vi) Brother of Kandappa Goundar by name Sengoda Goundar died. After his death, the legal heirs of Sengoda Goundar viz., his wife Muthayammal and her minor son Athiyappa Goundar sold their shares to one Ramasamy Goundar, son of Nanjappa Goundar under a registered sale deed 15.09.1954. The said Ramasamy Goundar died leaving behind his two sons viz., Sengoda Goundar and Kandasamy Goundar. They partitioned the properties and Sengoda Goundar sold his share to his brother Kandasamy and t


















































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
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