Back
2012 Supreme(Mad) 3664
High Court of Judicature at Madras
G. RAJASURIA, J.
Kannusamy Naicker (died) & Others
Versus
Nataraja Naicker & Others
A.S. No. 513 of 2006
Decided On : 27-08-2012
For the Appellants:Ms. P.T. Asha, for M/s. Sarvabhauman Associates, Advocates.
For the Respondents:R1 & R3, K. Meenakshi Sundaram, R13, R15 & R16, D. Sivakumaran, R12, P.V. Rangaraajan, Advocates, R4 to R8, R10, R11, R14, R17 to R20, Ex-Parte in lower Court, R9, R14 & R21, No Appearance.
The burden of proof, proper evidence, and adherence to legal procedures are crucial in determining the validity of claims and transactions in property disputes.
Headnote:
Partition - Property Dispute - O.S.No.6 of 2004 - Ex.B1 - Pattas - Oral Sale - Burden of Proof - Final Decree
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for partition of certain properties, claiming that there was no partition among the three sons of the original owner. The trial Court partly decreed the suit, allotting the plaintiff 1/3rd share in some of the items of the suit properties only.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the lower Court was not justified in holding that there was partition among the family members and in ordering partial partition. The finding concerning oral sale was deemed not tenable. The lower Court was also found to be unjustified in placing reliance on the pattas in favor of the defendants and in rejecting the request of the defendants to get marked the note books purported to contain the facts relating to the partition and allotment of shares. The judgment and decree of the lower Court were set aside.
Issues: The issues included the justification of the lower Court's findings on partition, oral sales, reliance on pattas, rejection of the request to mark note books, and the sustainability of the decree.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to the burden of proof, the need for proper evidence and documentation, and the necessity to follow the correct legal procedures in determining the validity of claims and transactions.
Final Decision: The appeal was disposed of, and the matter was remitted back to the trial Court with specific directions to give due opportunity for additional evidence to both sides and to apply relevant legal precedents. The judgment and decree of the lower Court were set aside, and the parties were directed to appear before the trial Court for further proceedings.
1. This appeal is focussed by the plaintiff as against the judgement and decree dated dated 30.11.2004 passed by the Additional District Judge(Fast Track Court III), Vridhachalam, in O.S.No.6 of 2004, which is one for partition.
2. The parties, for the sake of convenience, are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court.
3. A summation and summarisation of the relevant facts, which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this appeal, in a few broad strokes can be encapsulated thus:
(i) The first appellant herein, who died during the pendency of the appeal, as plaintiff, filed the suit O.S.No.6 of 2004 for partition of the 'A' and 'B' scheduled suit properties into three equal shares among himself, D1 and D2 and allot one such share in his favour. The appellants 2 to 6 are the LRs of the original plaintiff, the first appellant.
(ii) Indubitably and indisputably, unarguably and unassailably the properties described in the schedules of the plaint originally belonged to Lakshmana Naicker-the father of the plaintiff, D1 and D2. The said Lakshmana Naicker died on 25.1987 leaving behind his three sons.
(iii) The contention of the plaintiff in brief is that there was no partition among the three sons; however, the defendants 1 and 2 went to the extent of alienating various items of properties in favour of the remaining defendants, namely, D3 to D11, D13 to D21.
(iv) In fact, the plaintiff himself sold one item, namely, item No.28 of the suit properties in 'A' schedule in favour of D12.
(v) Defendants 1 and 2 filed the written statement separately and defendants 12, 14 and 17 filed a separate written statement resisting the suit.
(vi) The other defendants remained ex parte in the suit.
(vii) The gist and kernel of the defendants' theory is that there was actually partition during the life time of Lakshmana Naicker himself and in that, the plaintiff, D1 and D2 were allotted shares in the suit properties. Accordingly they would pray for the dismissal of the suit.
(viii) Whereupon issues were framed by the trial Court. During trial, the plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A7. On the defendants side, as many as ten witnesses were examined and Exs.B1 to B34 were marked.
(ix) Ultimately, the trial Court partly decreed the suit, allotting the plaintiff 1/3rd share in some of the items of the suit properties only.
4. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the same, the plaintiff filed this suit on various grounds:
5. The learned counsel for the plaintiff by placing reliance on the grounds of appeal would develop her arguments which could pithily and precisely be set out thus:
(i) The decree passed by the lower Court is as vague as vagueness could be and it is not based on any legal principle.
(ii) The lower Court has not only erroneously held that there was partition, but it went to the extent of granting some relief to the plaintiff in some small area of the suit properties and that too, not exclusively, but only 1/3rd share in it.
(iii) The lower Court mainly relied upon certain recitals relating to partition in Ex.B1-the sale Deed dated 25.10.1993, executed by the plaintiff and his sons in favour of D12, and simply held that the plaintiff could not deny the partition. Simply because there were recitals to that effect in Ex.B1 the lower Court was not justified in jumping to the conclusion that there was partition among the family members.
(iv) The patta will not confer title, but the lower Court relied upon Exs.B3 to B6, B10 to B12-the pattas and held that in view of the fact that pattas stand in the name of D1 and D2 in respect of certain items, the plaintiff could not lay claim over the said items.
(v) The burden was on the defendants to prove that there was partition as alleged by them, in the absence of a registered deed. The lower Court, without adhering to the principles governing 'the burden of proof' barely held as thoug
