Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
T. MATHIVANAN
Thulasi Ammal & Others
Versus
A. Sivakumar & Others
A.S.No.112 of 2003
Decided on: 21-03-2012
Limitation - Family Property - Sale Deed - [FAMILY PROPERTY, SALE DEED] - [Limitation Act, 1963, Article 58, Section 7]
Fact of the Case:
The suit involved a dispute over joint family properties and a sale deed executed by the defendants in favor of their sister. The plaintiffs claimed that the sale deed was void and not binding on them, citing family debts and lack of consideration. The defendants argued that the sale was for family necessity and benefit, and the plaintiffs had not challenged similar sales in the past. The trial court found in favor of the plaintiffs, but the defendants appealed.
Finding of the Court:
The appellate court found that the suit was barred by limitation as it was filed after the prescribed period. The court also held that the sale deed was valid and binding on the plaintiffs, as it was made for family necessity and benefit. The court dismissed the suit in favor of the defendants.
Issues: The main issues were the limitation of the suit and the validity of the sale deed in relation to family necessity and benefit.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the suit was barred by limitation under Article 58 of the Limitation Act, as it was filed after the prescribed period. The court also found that the sale deed was valid and binding on the plaintiffs, as it was made for family necessity and benefit.
Final Decision: The appellate court allowed the appeal, set aside the previous judgment, and dismissed the suit in favor of the defendants.
1. Challenge is made in this appeal to the Judgment and Decree dated 19.12.2002 and made in O.S.No.105 of 2001, on the file of the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Coimbatore.
2. The defendants 3 to 5 are the appellants herein, whereas the plaintiffs 1 to 4 are the respondents 1 to 4 herein and the defendants 1, 2 and 7 to 12 are the respondents 5 to 12 herein.
3. The facts, which are absolutely necessary for the disposal of the appeal are as under:
3.1. For easy reference, the respondents 1 to 4 may hereinafter be referred to as the plaintiffs and the respondents 5 and 6 be referred as defendants 1 and 2, whereas the appellants 1 to 3 and the remaining respondents viz.the respondents 7 to 12 be referred as the defendants 3 to 5 and 7 to 12.
3.2. The six defendantin the suit had passed away. The respondents 9 to 12 have therefore been impleaded as the defendants 9 to 12 in pursuant to the Order dated 24.06.2002 and made in I.A.No.138 of 2002 on the file of the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Coimbatore.
3.4. One Mr.Ramana Gounder and Mr.Palani Gounder are brothers. The first and second defendants are the sons of Mr.Ramana Gounder. The third defendant is his daughter. The plaintiffs 1 and 2 are the son and daughter of the first defendant. The plaintiffs 3 and 4 are the sons of the second defendant. The defendants 4 and 5 are the sons of the third defendant. The defendants 6 to 8 are the lessees in respect of the portions of the properties described in Schedule-A and C. During the pendency of the suit, the sixth defendant had passed away and therefore the defendants 9 to 12 have been impleaded as the legal heirs of the deceased sixth defendant.
3.5. The suit properties are the joint family properties, in respect of which a partition was effected and registered on 11.02.1960 between the grandfathers and fathers of the plaintiffs. During the said partition, the properties described in Schedule-A and other properties were allotted to the defendants 1 and 2. The property described under Schedule-C and other properties were allotted to Mr.Ramana Gounder, who is the grandfather of the plaintiffs. The said Mr.Ramana Gounder had executed a registered Will dated 03.08.1970 and thereby he had bequeathed the properties described under Schedule-C in favour of the defendants 1 and 2. The said Mr.Ramana Gounder had passed away on 03.10.1981 and after his demise the Will came into effect and therefore the properties described in Schedule-C were also treated as joint family properties.
3.6. The defendants 7 and 8 have been in possession of Item No.1 of Schedule-A properties in the capacity of lessee, while the ninth defendant is in possession of Schedule-C properties as a lessee. The defendants 1 and 2 have alienated some of the properties allotted to them and besides this they have also transferred certain properties in favour of the third defendant, who is none other than their sister, under a registered sale deed dated 28.08.1989.
3.7. In this connection, the plaintiffs stated that it was actually a sham and nominal deed. But, infact, they had settled the B-schedule properties in favour of the third defendant for which no consideration was passed. Since the properties described under Schedule-B are also joint family properties, the settlement in respect of that property by a coparcener even by a manager of the family is void and no title was conveyed to the third defendant under the above said deed.
3.8. The transactions in favour of the third defendant in respect of Schedule-B properties by the defendants 1 and 2 be it settlement or sale, will not bind upon the plaintiffs and therefore the plaintiffs are entitled to claim their 2/3rd share. Item No.2 in Schedule-A was left out in the partition of the year 1960, for common enjoyment wherein a Well, Salai, Kalam and Channel are situated. There are two Salais on the western side of the Well. In view of the close relationship with the defe
AI
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
