Back
High Court Of Madras
T.Mathivanan J.
Dhanalakshmi - Appellant
Versus
Chandran – Respondent
A.S. No. 936 of 2005
Decided On : Jun 17,2011
Adoption - Property Dispute - Transfer of Property Act, Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 - Sections 3, 9(1), 10(iv) - Limitation Act - Articles 57, 58 - Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1955 - Sections 6, 7 - [KEYWORD] - [PROPERTY DISPUTE] - [Transfer of Property Act, Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, Limitation Act, Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1955]
Fact of the Case:
The suit involves a property dispute arising from a gift deed executed by Madurai Naicker in favor of his son, Govindaraja Naicker, and subsequent adoption of the first defendant by Govindaraja Naicker. The plaintiff, claiming to be a reversioner, contested the adoption and settlement deed executed by Govindaraja Naicker in favor of the first defendant.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court found the suit maintainable, upheld the validity of the adoption and settlement deed, and dismissed the suit with costs in favor of the first defendant. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision.
Issues: Competency of the plaintiff to bring the suit on behalf of the heirs of Guruswami Naicker and Subramania Naicker, validity of adoption and settlement deed, valuation of the suit for court fees and jurisdiction.
Ratio Decidendi: The plaintiff lacked competency to file the suit on behalf of other legal representatives, and the adoption and settlement deed were found valid and binding. The suit was not properly valued for court fees and jurisdiction.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the judgment and decree of the trial court were confirmed with slight modification by setting aside the finding in respect of the valuation of the suit.
( 1. ) CHALLENGE is made in this first appeal to the judgment and decree dated 22/12/2002, and made in O.S. No. 1770 of 1999 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC-V) Chennai by the plaintiff therein.
( 2. ) THE facts which giving rise to the memorandum of this first appeal may be summarised as under:
"THE suit property was originally belonged to Madurai Naicker. He died some 50 years ago leaving behind his three sons namely: (1) Guruswami Naicker (2) Subramania Naicker (3) Govindaraja Naicker. Madurai Naicker had gifted the suit property being his self acquisition in favour of his third son, Govindaraja Naicker born through his second wife. THE terms of the gift deed runs as follows: i. If the donee dies issueless after being married, his widow shall enjoy the property till her death, ii. THEreafter it shall devolve on the other two sons viz; Guruswami Naicker and Subramania Naicker."
Govindaraja Naicker had been enjoying the suit property till his death i.e., till 29.03.1994. He died as a bachelor and therefore, the property should have devolved on the said Guruswami Naicker and Subramania Naicker. Guruswami Naicker had died on 21.12.1995 leaving behind his four daughters and two sons namely; (1) Kuttiammal (2) Seethammal (3) Dhanalakshmi (4) Shakunthala (5) Natarajan (6)Sambandham as his heirs. Subramania Naicker being the second son of Madurai Naicker had died on 15.12.1982 leaving behind his four sons and two daughters viz; (1) Madurai Naicker (2)Kamala Nathan (3) Palani (4) Manickkam (5) Jayalakshmi (6)Prema Kumari as his heirs.
"THE plaintiff is the third daughter, whereas the second defendant is the first daughter of Guruswami Naicker. THE third defendant is the widow of Natarajan who is the son of Guruswami Naicker. THE fourth defendant is the wife of Madurai Naicker who is the first son of Subramania Naicker and the fifth defendant is the daughter of Subramania Naicker. Besides the parties namely the plaintiff and the defendants 2 to 5 the other legal representatives of the deceased Guruswami Naicker and Subramania Naicker have not been evincing any interest in the subject matter of the suit. However, each branch namely the branch of Guruswami Naicker and Subramania Naicker are represented as reversioners."
During the life time of Govindaraja Naicker, he had settled the suit property in favour of the first defendant on 18.10.1989 through a registered settlement deed who claims to be the adopted son of the said Govindaraja Naicker. Govindaraja Naicker has no right whatsoever to adopt any person and as such the first defendant cannot have any legal right or claim over the property in his capacity as an alleged adopted son.
"THErefore, the settlement deed alleged to have been executed by the said Govindaraja Naicker in favour of the first defendant is not valid in law and as such he cannot derive any right under the settlement deed and hence, his possession in respect of the suit property is wrongful and illegal and he is bound to deliver the same to the reversions viz., the plaintiff and the defendants 2 to 5 as the settlement is not binding on the reversions. Hence this suit."
THE defendants 2 to 5 did not contest the suit as they remained ex parte. THE first defendant alone has contested the suit. In his written statement he has contended that at the time of executing the gift deed it could not be presumed that the donor under the gift deed was under any disability to transfer. THEre is no stipulation in the gift deed prohibiting the adoption by the donor. Guruswami Naicker had died about 40 years ago and it is not correct to say that he had died on 21.12.1995. Similarly, Subramania Naicker had also not died on 15.12.1982.
"Plaintiff is an impostor claiming as one of the heirs of Guruswami Naicker. THE plaintiff has not furnished correct details of the family of late Subramania Naicker. THE plaintiff has also not given material particulars regarding the details of the family with a view t
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
