Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
G. RAJASURIA, J.
R. Ramanathan
Versus
M. Arunkumar & Another
A.S. NO. 25 OF 2009
Decided On : 13-08-2012
Partition - Property Dispute - Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Registration Act, 1908 - Section 45 of Transfer of Property Act - [Section 17 of Registration Act, 1908, Section 45 of Transfer of Property Act] - The court discussed the applicability of Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908, and Section 45 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, in a partition suit. The judgment highlighted the legal provisions and their interpretations, emphasizing that unregistered documents not conferring any right on immovable property require no registration and are admissible in evidence. The court held that in the absence of clear evidence of the proportion of contributions for purchasing a property, joint purchasers are equally entitled to the property. The judgment modified the trial court's decree, allotting 4 shares to the plaintiff, 2 shares to D1, and 4 shares to D2 out of a total of 10 shares of the suit property.
Fact of the Case:
The suit involved a partition dispute over a property measuring 46 cents, purchased by the plaintiff's grandfather, D1's deceased husband, and D2. Separate written statements were filed by D1 and D2, each claiming a different share. The trial court decreed the suit, allotting 1/3rd share each to the plaintiff, D1, and D2. D2 appealed the judgment, arguing that the suit was bad for want of necessary parties and that the trial court erred in ignoring certain documents.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the suit was not bad for want of adding necessary parties and that the unregistered documents were admissible in evidence. It held that in the absence of clear evidence of the proportion of contributions for purchasing the property, joint purchasers are equally entitled to the property. The court modified the trial court's decree, allotting 4 shares to the plaintiff, 2 shares to D1, and 4 shares to D2 out of a total of 10 shares of the suit property.
Issues: The issues included whether the suit was bad for want of adding necessary parties, whether certain documents were bad for want of registration, and whether the trial court's judgment was perverse or illegal.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the suit was not bad for want of adding necessary parties and that unregistered documents not conferring any right on immovable property require no registration and are admissible in evidence. It emphasized that in the absence of clear evidence of the proportion of contributions for purchasing a property, joint purchasers are equally entitled to the property.
Final Decision: The court modified the trial court's decree, allotting 4 shares to the plaintiff, 2 shares to D1, and 4 shares to D2 out of a total of 10 shares of the suit property.
1. This appeal is focussed by the D2 as against the judgement and decree dated 22.1.2008 passed by the Additional District Court (Fast Track Court No.1), Coimbatore, in O.S.No.119 of 2006, 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 respondent herein, as plaintiff, filed the suit O.S.No.119 of 2006 for partition seeking the following relief:
"to grant a decree and judgement in favour of the plaintiff:
a. directing the division of the suit property into ten equal shares by metes and bounds in which allotment of four such share to the plaintiff and put the plaintiff in separate possession thereof."
(extracted as such)
(ii) Separate written statements were filed by D1 and D2, claiming shares as per their own calculations. In fact, D2 filed the additional written statement also.
(iii) The gist and kernal, the pith and marrow of the averments in the plaint would be to the effect that the suit property measuring an extent of 46 cents, as found described in the schedule of the plaint, was purchased by the plaintiff's grandfather, namely, Govindasamy Chettiar and D1's deceased husband, namely, Sivanadiyan and D2Ramanathan; they contributed the sale price at the rate of 40%, 30% and 30% respectively, and accordingly, they were entitled to the suit property at the same proportion. Accordingly the plaintiff prayed for passing a preliminary decree.
(iv) D1 filed the written statement contending that her deceased husband, namely, Sivanadiyan, was entitled to 40% share and not 30% as alleged in the plaint and accordingly, as the legal heir of the said deceased-Sivanadiyan, she prayed for decreeing the suit in her favour allotting her share.
(v) D2 filed the written statement as well as additional written statement contending that as per Exs.B1-Varthamanam deed dated 16.9.1980 and Ex.B2-the Agreement dated 6.4.1980 marked during the trial, the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 are entitled to 40%, 20%, and 40% respectively, so to say, the plaintiff is entitled to 4 shares and D1 is entitled to 2 shares and D2 is entitled to the remaining 4 shares in the total extent of 46 cents. Accordingly, D2 prayed for passing the decree in her favour allotting her share.
(vi) Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the relevant issues.
(vii) During trial, the plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and Exs.P1 to P7 were marked. The defendants examined themselves as R.Ws.1 and 2 along with R.W.3 and Exs.R1 and R2 were marked.
(viii) Ultimately, the trial Court decreed the suit allotting 1/3rd share each in favour of the plaintiff, D1 and D2.
4. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgement and preliminary decree of the lower Court, the defendant No.2 filed this appeal on various grounds.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant/D2 would pyramid his arguements which could pithily and precisely be set out thus:
(i) The plaint was as silent as silence could be in respect of Exs.B1 and B2. It is D2, who by marking Exs.B1 and B2 highlighted and spotlighted the fact that the sale deed Ex.A1 was sandwiched by Exs.B1 and B2. In fact, Ex.B2 was entered into among as many as 7 persons in respect of the suit property as well as one other extent of property. So much so, Ex.B1 also emerged among the same persons in respect of the suit property as well as one other extent of property.
(ii) Pithily and precisely those seven parties to those agreements, intended that the suit property as well as the one other extent of property should be purchased under two sale deeds one in the name of three persons, namely, Govindasamy Chettiar, D1's husband Sivanadiyan and Ramanathan-(as per Ex.A1) and the one other property, whic
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
