Back
2010 Supreme(Mad) 4088
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R. MALA
G. Raghuraman(died) & Others
Versus
Jegannatha Naidu & Others
S.A.NO.246 of 2002
Decided On : 16-09-2010
For the Appellants:K. Chandrasekaran, Advocate.
For the Respondent:R1, R. Balakrishnan, Advocate & R2 & R3, No appearance.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for conclusive evidence to establish the validity of a purported Will, the need for accurate property descriptions, and the importance of establishing inheritance rights through proper documentation and evidence.
Headnote:
Will - Property Dispute - Ex.A-1 - Summary of the acts and sections referenced and discussed by the court: The court discussed the interpretation of Ex.A-1, a document claimed to be a Will, and its implications on the property dispute. The court referred to Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act and relevant case law to determine the nature of Ex.A-1 and its validity. The court also considered the genealogy of the parties and the division of properties, as well as the evidence presented by both parties to establish ownership and inheritance rights.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a property dispute between the plaintiff, claiming ownership based on a purported Will (Ex.A-1), and the defendants, disputing the plaintiff's claim and asserting their own rights to the properties. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the first appellate court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff. The Second Appeal was filed by the defendants challenging the first appellate court's decision.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the document Ex.A-1, claimed to be a Will, was not proven to be a valid Will. The court also noted discrepancies in the description of properties and the lack of evidence to establish the plaintiff's inheritance rights. As a result, the judgments and decrees of both the trial court and the first appellate court were set aside, and the case was remanded to the trial court for further consideration.
Issues: The key issues included the validity and nature of Ex.A-1, the correlation of the suit properties with the documents Exs.A-1 to A-3, the plaintiff's inheritance rights, and the irregularities in the description of additional documents filed before the first appellate court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the lack of conclusive evidence to establish the validity of Ex.A-1 as a Will, discrepancies in property descriptions, and the need for further examination of the plaintiff's inheritance rights and the additional documents presented by both parties.
Final Decision: The Second Appeal was allowed, and the case was remanded to the trial court for reconsideration of the key issues and a fresh decision within six months.
1. The Second Appeal arises out of the judgment and decree, dated 27.9.2001 made in A.S.No.7 of 2001 on the file of the Subordinate Judges Court, Mathuranthagam, reversing the judgment and decree, dated 27.11.2000 made in O.S.No.557 of 1993 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Mathuranthagam.
2. The averments made in the plaint are as follows:
(a) The first respondent/plaintiff is the absolute and exclusive owners of the suit properties. He got the same under a registered Will executed by one Chengappa Naidu on 4.10.1938. The suit properties were acquired by Chengappa Naidu under a Sale Deed, dated 19.12.1944 and also from Lakshmi Ammal as legal heir. Chengappa Naidu was in possession and enjoyment of the same till his death in the year 1958. Thereafter, the first respondent/plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment. Patta has been transferred in his name and also he has been paying the kist. He dug up two Wells and also put up electric motor pump-set. The service connections stands in the name of the first respondent/plaintiff. He also dealt with the properties by way of mortgaging the same in 1972 with the Land Development Bank, Chithamoor and in 1993, he has also mortgaged with L.D.Bank, Madurantakam, to purchase a Tractor. The defendants are well aware of the same.
(b) It is stated by the first respondent/plaintiff that the defendants have no manner of right, title or interest over the suit properties. The first respondent/plaintiff is not claiming any interest over the properties of his natural father. Only the defendants are in possession of the said properties and they divided the same. The defendants were not in good terms with the plaintiff and were pressurising the Plaintiff to give share in the suit properties, but they are not entitled to share.
(c) Since the plaintiff refused to give his share, the defendants attempted to trespass into the suit properties and were also interfering with his possession, and hence, the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit for declaration of title to the suit properties and also for consequential permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men and agents from in any way interfering with the plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties and also for payment of costs.
3. The gist and essence of the written statement filed by the first defendant, adopted by defendants 2 and 3, are as follows:-
(a) The first defendant is the own younger brother of the plaintiff. One Munusamy Naidu is the grand-father of the plaintiff. Munusamy Naidu had five sons and the last son is Gopalsamy Naidu. The said Gopalswamy Naidu had three sons. The elder son is Kamalanathan, who died in or about 1982 leaving behind his widow Banumathi and two sons, viz., Rajendran and Venkat, i.e., the defendants 2 and 3. The third son of Gopalasamy Naidu is Raguraman, who is the first defendant. Even during the life time of Kamalanathan, the estates were orally divided between the brothers. The plaintiff never enjoyed, nor owned the suit properties, much less as exclusive owner. The properties were divided in or about 1980 and at no point of time, the plaintiff has retained any separate property, much less as the adopted son. The entire estates are pooled together and division was made and the same was acted upon and came into force. Lot of improvements were made.
(b) The properties were also alienated and only out of such sale proceeds, the improvements were made. Most of the estates were allotted to the first defendant and sold out and out of such sale proceeds, the suit properties were improved. Only a negligible portion was alienated to the share allotted to the plaintiff. The division was made regarding all the properties, including the properties covered under the suit Will. Such division was made in open and to the knowledge of entire villagers, which was acted upon and came into force. The first defendant has incurred huge debts to dig a Well and laid pipeline
