High Court of Judicature at Madras
M. JAICHANDREN
D. Bharath Kumar & Others
Versus
D. Chandrasekar
S.A.No.636 of 2009
Decided On : 17-08-2010
Adoption - Property Dispute - Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 - O.S.No.101 of 1998 - Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33 - The court discussed the validity of adoption, the sale of properties, and the entitlement to permanent injunction based on the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to prove their claims and that the sale of properties was valid, leading to the dismissal of the suit.
Fact of the Case:
The suit involved a dispute over property ownership and adoption claims. The plaintiffs sought a decree of permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from interfering with their possession and enjoyment of the properties.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiffs failed to prove their claims of property ownership and adoption. It held that the sale of properties was valid and that the defendant was in possession of the properties, leading to the rejection of the plaintiffs' request for permanent injunction.
Issues: The issues included the validity of the lease deed, entitlement to permanent injunction, and the adoption claims. The court also considered the validity of the sale of properties and the possession of the defendant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the failure of the plaintiffs to prove their claims, the validity of the sale of properties, and the possession of the defendant.
Final Decision: The second appeal filed by the appellants was dismissed as they failed to prove their claims, and the court upheld the findings of the lower courts.
1. This second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree, dated 2.12.2008, made in A.S.No.45 of 2005, on the file of the District Court and Fast Track Court, No.4, Ponneri, confirming the judgment and decree, dated 21.12.2004, made in O.S.No.101 of 1998, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Ponneri.
2. The plaintiffs in the suit, in O.S.No.101 of 1998, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Ponneri, are the appellants in the present second appeal. The defendant in the said suit is the respondent herein. The suit had been filed praying for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant and others from interfering with the plaintiffs’ peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties, and for costs.
3. In the plaint filed in the suit, in O.S.No.101 of 1998, it has been stated that the first plaintiff’s father D.Viswanathan, son of Kumarasamy Chetty, had been adopted by Badraiah Chetty. The second plaintiff is the daughter of Chengalvaraya Chetty. She had also been adopted by Badraiah Chetty, since, Badraiah Chetty had no issues.
4. It had also been stated that the suit properties belonged to Badraiah Chetty, absolutely. Badraiah Chetty was in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties, during his life time. Thereafter, D.Viswanathan, and the second plaintiff, Shantha, had been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. After the demise of D.Viswanathan, his son Bharath Kumar, the first plaintiff in the suit, had been continuing to be in possession and enjoyment of the said properties. The defendant is the son of the paternal uncle of the first and the second plaintiffs.
5. It had also been stated that Devi Veerappa Chetty, the great grand father of the said plaintiffs, had left behind his three sons, namely, Devi Chengali Chetty, Sarabaiah Chetty, and Dhoorvasalu Chetty. Chengali Chetty had died leaving behind Veera badraiah, Chengalrayan, and Kumarasamy. The defendant is the son of Veera badraiah. The second plaintiff is the daughter of Chelgalvaraya Chetty and the adopted daughter of Badraiah Chetty, who had performed her marriage.
6. It had also been stated that during the life time of Badraiah Chetty, he had let out a portion of the house properties shown in the first item of the suit properties through a registered rental agreement, dated 20.5.1942. since, Badraiah Chetty had no issues and as his adopted children were very young, the defendant was looking after the affairs of the first item of the suit properties, as well as the cultivable lands in the second item of the suit properties. While so, the defendant had attempted to sell the suit properties to a third party, without disclosing the fact that the plaintiffs were the real owners of the said properties. In such circumstances, the plaintiffs had filed the suit, in O.S.No.101 of 1998, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Ponneri.
7. In the written statement filed on behalf of the defendant, it had been stated that the suit filed by the plaintiffs is not maintainable, either in law or on facts. The averments and the claims made by the plaintiffs in the plaint filed in the suit, in O.S.No.101 of 1998, are incorrect and false. It is a fact that Veerappa Chetty had three sons, namely, Sarabaiah Chetty, Devi Chengali Chetty, and Dhoor Vasalu Chetty. Sarabaiah Chetty had no issues. Devi Chengali Chetty had three sons, namely, Veerabadram chetty, father of the defendant, Chengalvaraya chetty, father of the second plaintiff and Kumaraswamy chetty, paternal grand father of the first plaintiff. Dhoor Vasalu Chetty had a son by the name of Badraiah Chetty. After the death of Veerappa Chetty, his three sons, Sarabaiah Chetty, Devi Chengali Chetty, and Dhoor Vasalu Chetty were enjoying the property left by Veerappa Chetty. Later, Devi Chengali Chetty had died leaving behind his three sons, Veerabadram chetty, Chengalraya chetty and Kumarasamy chetty. Since, Veerabadram chetty was the eldest among
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.