Back
2012 Supreme(Mad) 3674
High Court of Judicature at Madras
G. RAJASURIA, J.
Palanisamy
Versus
Chinnakandan @ Kandasamy & Others
A.S. No. 575 of 2009
Decided On : 28-08-2012
For the Petitioner:Mrs. Hema Sampath, Senior counsel, for G. Arul Murugan, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R1 & R2, A.K. Kumarasamy, S. Palanisamy, R3, N. Balaji, Advocates, R4, No Appearance.
.
Headnote:
Chinnamottaiyan @ Sengoda Gounder - Property Partition - Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Hindu Succession Act, 1956, Hindu Women's Right to Property Act, 1937, Madras Hindu Women's Rights to Property (Extension to Agricultural land) Act, 1947 - Section 17(2) of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 allows death extracts to be taken as evidence. The court held that the death extract of Chinnamottaiyan @ Sengoda Gounder was admissible evidence, establishing his death on 07.09.1947. The court also applied the Hindu laws to determine the inheritance rights of the parties, concluding that the plaintiff, as the grandson of Chinnamottaiyan @ Sengoda Gounder, was entitled to a share in the property. The court further ruled that Kozhandhayee Ammal, the wife of Chinnamottaiyan @ Sengoda Gounder, had a 1/3rd absolute right in the property, which should be divided among her four children. The court also addressed the effect of property transactions and mortgages, ultimately remanding the matter back to the trial court for further proceedings.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit seeking the division of certain properties and other reliefs. The trial court dismissed the suit, leading to the plaintiff's appeal. The parties were in dispute over the inheritance and property rights stemming from the death of Chinnamottaiyan @ Sengoda Gounder and the subsequent actions of the family members.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the death extract of Chinnamottaiyan @ Sengoda Gounder was admissible evidence, establishing his death on 07.09.1947. The court also applied Hindu laws to determine the inheritance rights of the parties, concluding that the plaintiff, as the grandson of Chinnamottaiyan @ Sengoda Gounder, was entitled to a share in the property. The court further ruled that Kozhandhayee Ammal, the wife of Chinnamottaiyan @ Sengoda Gounder, had a 1/3rd absolute right in the property, which should be divided among her four children. The court also addressed the effect of property transactions and mortgages, ultimately remanding the matter back to the trial court for further proceedings.
Issues: The issues included the date of Chinnamottaiyan @ Sengoda Gounder's death, the property rights of Kozhandhayee Ammal, the effect of property transactions, the entitlement of the plaintiff to a share in the property, and the validity of the trial court's judgment and decree.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the admissibility of the death extract of Chinnamottaiyan @ Sengoda Gounder as evidence, as per Section 17(2) of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969. The court also applied Hindu laws to determine inheritance rights, emphasizing the entitlement of the plaintiff as the grandson of Chinnamottaiyan @ Sengoda Gounder and the absolute right of Kozhandhayee Ammal in the property. The court further considered the effect of property transactions and mortgages in determining the parties' entitlement to the property.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the matter was remitted back to the trial court for further proceedings, including the addition of parties who were not originally part of the suit and the passing of a preliminary decree based on the court's findings and directions.
1. This appeal is focussed at the instance of the plaintiff as against the judgment and decree dated 10.11.2008 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.I, Salem in O.S.No.125 of 2006.
2. The parties, for convenience sake, are referred to here under according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court.
3. Compendiously and concisely, the germane facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of this appeal would run thus:
a] The plaintiff/appellant herein filed the suit seeking the following reliefs:
To pass a decree in favour of the plaintiff and as against the defendants 1 to 3-
A) directing the division of the suit 'A' and 'B' schedule properties into 6 equal shares by metes and bounds and allot one such divided share to the plaintiff and directing the defendants 1 to 3 to put the plaintiff in separate possession of one such divided share.
B) order appointing a Commissioner for the said purpose. C) to direct the 2nd defendant to show accounts with regard to the net income derived by him from the PVC pipe manufacturing per year and directing the 2nd defendant to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- per year to the plaintiff being his 1/6th lawful share from the said income from the date of suit.
D) to grant permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 to 3 from alienating or encumbering the suit properties till partition is effected in the above suit and E) for costs.
(extracted as such)
b) D2 filed the written statement, which was adopted by D1. D3 filed the written statement supporting the case of the plaintiff. D4 being the Bank is a formal party, who also filed the written statement.
c) The trial court framed the relevant issues.
d] During trial, the plaintiff examined himself as PW1 along with PW2 and marked Exs.A1 to A43. On the defendants' side, the first defendant examined himself as D.W.1 along with DW2 and marked Ex.B1.
e] Ultimately, the trial court dismissed the suit.
4. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree of the trial court, the plaintiff has preferred this appeal on various grounds.
5. The relationship among the parties is an admitted one. D1-Chinnakandan @ Kandasamy's son is the plaintiff -Palanisamy; D2-Mohan and D3-Venila are the children of the plaintiff-Palanisamy.
6. The earlier genealogy put forth before the trial court by both sides would run thus:
(i) According to both sides, one Chinnamottaiyan @ Sengoda Gounder happened to be the original propositus, who owned some of suit properties as his self-acquired properties. Chinnamottaiyan @ Sengoda Gounder's wife is Kozhandhayee Ammal. The couple had two children, viz., D1-Chinnakandan @Kandasamy and PW2-Periyakandasami.
(ii) Pithily and precisely, tersely and briefly, the case of the plaintiff before the trial court would run thus:
Chinnamottaiyan@ Sengoda Gounder died during the year 1947 leaving behind his two sons, viz., D1-Chinnakandan @ Kandasamy and PW2-Periyakandasami; whereupon both of them were entitled to half share each in the suit properties. Subsequently, P.W2 along with his minor sons, represented by the said Kozhandhayee Ammal got his half share sold in favour of one Kalianna Gounder. Subsequently, D1 purchased the said property, purchased by the said Kalianna Gounder and those properties are also part and parcel of the suit properties including the half share of D1 to which, he was originally entitled to. The plaintiff is entitled to ½ share; whereas D1 is entitled to another half share in the suit properties; inasmuch as the plaintiff is having two children as stated supra, the plaintiff claims in the entire suit property his 1/6th share.
(iii) Per contra, the case of D1 and D2 before the trial court would be as under:
Consequent upon the death of Chinnamottaiyan @ Sengoda Gounder subsequent to 1956, D1 became the Class-I heir as per Hindu Succession Act, 1956 of his father and he became the absolute owner of the suit properties along with his brothe
