Back
2010 Supreme(Mad) 4338
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. DURAISWAMY
Chinnammal & Another
Versus
Valliammal & Others
Second Appeal No.383 of 2003
Decided On :10-02-2010
For the Appellans:R. Subramaniam, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R1, V. Udayakumar, Advocate, R2, R3 R. Muthaian, G.A.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the lower appellate court to provide reasons for reversing the trial court's judgment and the immediate effect of a joint Will after the death of any one of the testators.
Headnote:
Joint Will - Property Dispute - Ex.A-1, Ex.A-2, Ex.A-38 - The judgment discusses the validity of the joint Will, the ownership of the suit properties, and the transfer of pattas. The court considered the documentary and oral evidence to establish the title and possession of the suit properties by the appellants. The court also addressed the reversal of judgment by the lower appellate court without assigning reasons and the effect of the joint Will.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration of title and mandatory injunction against the defendants to transfer the pattas of the suit properties in their name. The defendants contested the claim, alleging invalidity of the sale deeds and lack of title in the plaintiffs.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellants proved their title and possession over the suit properties through documentary and oral evidence. The court also held that the joint Will comes into effect immediately after the death of any one of the testators, contrary to the lower appellate court's finding.
Issues: Validity of sale deeds, ownership of suit properties, reversal of judgment by lower appellate court, effect of joint Will
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the documentary evidence of sale deeds and tax receipts to establish the appellants' possession and ownership. It also emphasized the need for the lower appellate court to provide reasons for reversing the trial court's judgment. Additionally, the court clarified the effect of the joint Will in determining the rights of the parties.
Final Decision: The judgment and decree of the lower appellate court were set aside, and the judgment and decree of the trial court were restored in favor of the appellants. The second appeal was allowed with no order as to costs.
The above Second Appeal arises against the judgment and decree in A.S.No.80 of 2001 on the file of Principal District Court, Perambalur reversing the Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.12 of 1993 on the file of District Munsif Court, Perambalur.
2. The plaintiffs 2 and 3 in the suit are the appellants in the above second appeal. The third defendant is the first respondent and the defendants 1 and 2 are the respondents 2 and 3 in the above second appeal.
3. The plaintiffs filed the suit in O.S.No.12 of 1993 on the file of District Munsif Court, Perambalur for declaration of title and mandatory injunction against the defendants 1 and 2 to transfer the pattas of the suit properties in the name of 2nd and 3rd plaintiffs.
4. The brief case of the plaintiffs in the suit are as follows:-
(i) According to the plaintiffs, the suit properties belong to them. Under the sale deed dated 4.6.1966, the first plaintiff purchased the first item of the suit property from one Namanan son of Namanan. Since the date of purchase, the first plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the first item of the suit property.
(ii) According to the plaintiffs, the first plaintiff purchased the second item of the suit property from one Perumal son of Undukatti Raman on 12.9.1966. Since the date of purchase, the first plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the second item also. The patta for these properties were transferred in the name of the first plaintiff. From the date of purchase, the plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. Subsequently, the plaintiffs learnt that the patta for the suit properties were transferred in favour of the first defendant without any notice to the plaintiffs.
(iii) According to the plaintiffs, the third defendant nor her vendors had any title or interest over the suit properties and she is not in possession and enjoyment of the same. The third defendant alleges that she purchased the suit properties from one Namanan son of Nallan in respect of first item of the suit property and in respect of the second item of the suit property, she alleges that she purchased the said property from one Perumal son of Ramasamy in the year 1987. The alleged sale deeds are not true and valid in law. The first plaintiff has taken several steps to get the pattas transferred in his name. But, there is no response from the defendants 1 and 2. The third defendant colluding with the revenue officials got pattas transferred in her name without notice to the plaintiffs. Therefore the plaintiffs filed the suit.
5. The brief case of the defendants 1 and 2 are as follows:
(i) According to the defendants 1 and 2, item No.1 of the suit property was originally a Government Poramboke land and it was assigned in favour of one Namanan son of Namanan on 18.7.1962. Violating the assignment conditions, the said Namanan sold the properties to the first plaintiff on 4.6.1966. Therefore, the assignment automatically got cancelled. The purchase by the first plaintiff in respect of first item of the property is not valid and grant of patta transfer in respect of item No.2 of the suit property will be decided after enquiry. Therefore, defendants 1 and 2 prayed for dismissal of the suit.
6. The brief case of the third defendant is as follows:
(i) According to the third defendant, sale deeds dated 4.6.1966 and 12.9.1966 are not true. The same cannot convey any title, interest or possession of the plaintiffs in respect of the suit properties. One of the vendors of the plaintiffs namely, Namanan seems to have got the first item of the suit property by way of assignment in the year 1962. As per the conditions of the said assignment, the alleged sale in favour of the first plaintiff by the said Namanan in respect of item No.1 of the suit property is invalid.
(ii) According to the third defendant, he is a bonafide purchaser in respect of item No.2 of the suit property having purchased the same from one Perumal son of Ramasamy by m
