Back
2013 Supreme(Mad) 2135
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.R. SHIVAKUMAR, J.
A. Rayappan
Versus
P. Anthony Pushparaj & Another
S.A. Nos.711 & 792 of 2012 & M.P.Nos.1 + 1 of 2012
Decided on: 24-06-2013
For the Appellant:Ms. V. Saradhadevi, for K. Sakthivel, Advocates.
For the Respondents:V. Raghavachari, Advocates.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of establishing the genuineness of property documents and the implications of property transactions involving minors under the Indian Registration Act and the Guardianship and Wards Act.
Headnote:
Substantial Question of Law - Property Dispute - Indian Registration Act - Guardianship and Wards Act
Fact of the Case:
The appellant and the respondents were involved in a property dispute regarding the ownership and possession of certain properties. The appellant claimed ownership based on a sale deed, while the respondents claimed ownership based on a settlement deed. The lower courts dismissed the appellant's suit and decreed the suit filed by the second respondent. The appellant appealed to the High Court, arguing that the lower courts erred in their decisions.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the sale deed relied on by the appellant was not genuine and was brought into existence to defeat the rights of the second respondent under the settlement deed. The court found that the settlement deed and the title derived by the second respondent stood established. The court concluded that the questions formulated by the appellant were not substantial questions of law and dismissed the appeals.
Issues: The main issues revolved around the validity of the sale deed, the settlement deed, and the ownership and possession of the properties in question.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the sale deed was not genuine and was brought into existence to defeat the rights of the second respondent under the settlement deed. The court also highlighted the provisions of the Indian Registration Act and the Guardianship and Wards Act in relation to property transactions involving minors.
Final Decision: The High Court dismissed the appeals and upheld the decisions of the lower courts, concluding that the questions raised by the appellant were not substantial questions of law.
1. Rayappan is the sole appellant in S.A.No.711/2012 and also in S.A.No.792/2012. Anthony Pushparaj is the sole respondent in S.A.No.711/2012. His mother Sowriammal figures as the first respondent and he figures as the second respondent in S.A.No.792/2012. As one and the same person figures as appellant in both the second appeals, for the sake of convenience, he (Rayappan) shall be referred to as appellant. Whereas Sowriammal and Anthony Pushparaj shall be referred to as respondents 1 and 2 respectively.
2. The second respondent Anthony Pushparaj filed a suit against the appellant Rayappan in O.S.No.567/2000 on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif, Vriddhachalam praying for a declaration of his absolute title in respect of the suit property and for a consequential injunction restraining the appellant herein from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Rayappan, the appellant herein filed a suit in O.S.No.925/2004 on the file of the same court against the respondents 1 and 2, namely Sowriammal and Anthony Pushparaj, for a declaration that he was the absolute owner of the suit property and for the recovery of possession of the suit property from the respondents. Both the suits were tried together and by a common judgment dated 14.08.2009, the learned trial judge, namely the Principal District Munsif, Vriddhachalam, dismissed the suit filed by the appellant, namely O.S.No.925/2004 and decreed the suit filed by the second respondent Anthony Pushparaj, namely O.S.No.567/2000 for the reliefs of declaration and injunction.
3. As against the decree granting the reliefs of declaration and injunction made in O.S.No.567/2000 in favour of the second respondent herein, the appellant preferred an appeal in A.S.No.56/2010 on the file of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Vriddhachalam. Similarly, the decree of the trial court dismissing the appellant's suit O.S.No.925/2004 was challenged by the appellant before the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Vriddhachalam in A.S.No.77/2010. The learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Vriddhachalam (lower appellate judge) after hearing, dismissed both the appeals by a common judgment dated 11.10.2011 confirming the decrees passed by the trial court in the respective suits. Questioning the correctness of the said common judgment pronounced and the decrees passed in A.S.No.56/2010 and A.S.No.77/2010 on the file of the lower appellate court, the appellant has preferred the present second appeals S.A.No.711/2012 and 792/2012 respectively on various grounds set out in the respective memorandum of grounds of second appeal.
4. One Periyanayagam was the husband of the first respondent Sowriammal and their son is the second respondent Anthony Pushparaj. Admittedly, the said Periyanayagam was the original owner of the property, which is the subject matter of both the suits from which the second appeals have arisen. The said properties have been described in two items in both the plaints. An extent of 0.95 acre equivalent to 0.38.5 hectare comprised in S.No.324/1B1 of Kammapuram village, Kammapuram Sub Registration District, Vriddhachalam Taluk and an extent of 0.85 acre equivalent to 0.34.5 hectare comprised in S.No.324/4C of the same village have been described to be the first and second items of the suit property in both the suits. There is no dispute that the said property originally belonged to Periyanayagam, the husband of the first respondent/father of the second respondent. According to the appellant, the said Periyanayagam executed a sale deed on 10.07.1995 on his behalf and also on behalf of the second respondent, who was a minor at that point of time selling the suit properties to the appellant for a sum of Rs.21,720/-, but, after such execution, he refused to come for the registration of the same, which necessitated the appellant to approach the Registering Authority for compulsory registration of the same.
5. It is the further content
