Back
2010 Supreme(Mad) 4362
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. TAMILVANAN
Angathal (Deceased) & Another
Versus
Poomalai Gounder & Others
S.A.Nos. 101 & 102 of 2001 & C.M.P.No.1779 of 2008
Decided On :10-03-2010
For the Appellants:C.R. Prasanan, Advocate.
For the Respondents:K.S. Sundar, Advocate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the validity and binding nature of a family arrangement reduced into writing and signed by parties, and the estoppel of a party to raise a contrary plea against their own statement.
Headnote:
Family Arrangement - Property Dispute - 1976 (3) SCC 119, AIR 1966 SC 323, AIR 1995 SC 1728, 1999 (1) CTC 256, AIR 1966 SC 1836 - The court discussed the validity of a family arrangement reduced into writing and signed by parties, the recognition of right and possession, and the estoppel of a party to raise a contrary plea against their own statement. The court held that the family arrangement, Ex.B.1, was binding on the parties and did not require registration, estopping the respondent from raising a contrary plea. The court found that the respondent failed to establish his claim based on an alleged partition deed, and the appellants were entitled to permanent injunction.
Fact of the Case:
The suit involved a property dispute between the parties, with the first respondent seeking declaration of title, recovery of possession, and mesne profits. The first appellant and her husband sought permanent injunction against the first respondent and others from interfering with their possession and enjoyment of the property. After the death of the appellants, their son was impleaded as the second appellant.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the family arrangement, Ex.B.1, was binding on the parties and did not require registration, estopping the respondent from raising a contrary plea. The respondent failed to establish his claim based on an alleged partition deed, and the appellants were entitled to permanent injunction.
Issues: The issues involved the recognition of right and possession based on a family arrangement, the validity of the alleged partition deed, and the entitlement to permanent injunction.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a family arrangement reduced into writing and signed by parties does not require registration and is binding on the parties. The respondent's failure to establish his claim based on an alleged partition deed led to the entitlement of the appellants to permanent injunction.
Final Decision: The second appeals were allowed, the impugned judgments were set aside, and the suit in O.S.No.59 of 1996 was decreed as prayed for, while O.S.No.58 of 1996 was dismissed. No costs were awarded.
1. The Second Appeals have been preferred against the common Judgment and Decree, dated 24.03.2000 made in A.S.No.155 of 1998 and A.S.No.156 of 1998 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Coimbatore, confirming the common Judgment and Decree, dated 10.07.1998 made in O.S.No.58 of 1996 and O.S.No.59 of 1996 on the file of the District Munsif, Mettupalayam.
2. The suit in O.S.No.58 of 1996 was filed by the first respondent herein against the deceased first appellant, Angathal and her husband Arukutti Gounder, seeking declaration of title, recovery of possession of the suit property and for rendition of accounts. The suit in O.S.No.59 of 1996 was filed by the deceased Angathal and Arukutti Gounder, husband of Angathal against the respondent, Poomalai Gounder and six others, seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendants therein and their men from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property.
3. It is made clear for the sake of convenience and easy understanding, considering the earlier suit, that the term plaintiff, plaintiffs document or plaintiffs witness and the term defendant, defendants document or defendants witness refer to would denote only the term in the suit in O.S.No.1604 of 1992, which was subsequently renumbered as O.S.No.59 of 1996 and also the appeal relating to the said suit, if the suit number, witness or the document is not specifically mentioned in this Judgment.
4. In the suit in O.S.No.58 of 1996, "A" schedule of property is stated as 2.77 acres of punja land in S.No.918, Kumarapalayam village, Mettupalayam Taluk, "B" schedule of property, an extent of 18 cents, out of a total extent of 5.90 acres of land in the said survey number. In the suit in O.S.No.59 of 1996, the schedule of property is stated as S.No.918 in Kumarapalayam village, Mettupalayam Taluk, an extent of 2.95 acres, out of 5.90 acres of land with a well and 5 HP motor pumpset and electric service connection fitted in the well. The details of the electric service connection is also stated in the schedule of property.
5. After the trial, the suit in O.S.No.58 of 1996 filed by Poomalai Gounder was decreed as prayed for and the suit filed in O.S.No.59 of 1996, by the deceased Angathal and Arukutti Gounder was dismissed. Aggrieved by which, appeals in A.S.No.155 of 1998 and A.S.No.156 of 1998 were preferred. Learned Principal District Judge, Coimbatore, by his common Judgment, dated 24.03.2000, confirmed the common Judgment rendered by the trial court and dismissed both the appeals. Aggrieved by which, the second appeals have been preferred.
6. The said Arukutti Gounder died prior to the filing of the appeals, Angathal, wife of Arukutti Gounder was already on record, hence, his son was impleaded as the second appellant. Subsequently, Angathal was reported dead, hence, the only contesting appellant is Shanmuga Sundaram, as their only legal heir.
7. Both the second appeals were admitted by this Court on the following common substantial questions of law :
"1. Whether in law the Courts below erred in holding that Ex.B.1 required registration overlooking that conferment of status and possession of the first appellant, recognition of her possession for the past 18 years prior to its execution, by recording it by way of Ex.B.1 does not require recognition as per the dictums reported in 1998 (2) L.W. 678 and 2000 II CTC 574 ?
2. Whether in law, the Courts below erred in overlooking that the plaintiff, who had accepted his signature in Ex.B.1 had not discharged burden of proving his case that Ex.B.1 was not a genuine document, as laid down in the Judgment reported in AIR 1960 SC 100 ?"
8. Poomalai Gounder, the respondent in S.A.No.101 of 2001 and the first respondent in S.A.No.102 of 2001, who filed the suit in O.S.No.58 of 1996 has stated that himself (Poomalai Gounder), his brother Subramaniya Gounder, deceased Angathal (first defendant) and one Valliammal were the children of late Palani Goun
