Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S. Palanivelu, J.
L. Suresh and Another
Versus
Yasothammal and Others
S.A. No. 789 of 2007 and M.P. No. 1 of 2007 & M.P. No. 1 of 2013
Decided On : 11 October 2013
Partition - Property Dispute - O.S. No. 270 of 1998 - Order I Rule 9 CPC - Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act - Extinguishment of Right - Non-Joinder of Necessary Parties
Fact of the Case:
Dispute arose over the partition of 'A' schedule property and subsequent sale of 'B' schedule property. Plaintiff claimed absolute right over the schedule property and filed suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the suit was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and hence dismissed the suit in its entirety.
Issues: 1. Suit sustainability and material particulars. 2. Limitation of the suit. 3. Non-joinder of necessary parties. 4. Equity in the allotment of 'B' schedule properties. 5. Benefit under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The suit was dismissed due to non-joinder of necessary parties as per Order I Rule 9 CPC, which resulted in the failure of the suit in its entirety.
Final Decision: The Second Appeal was allowed with costs, and the suit in O.S. No. 270 of 1998 was dismissed.
Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
The suit was filed regarding property disputes involving the partition and ownership of certain properties designated as 'A' and 'B' schedule properties (!) (!) .
The plaintiff claimed absolute ownership and sought a declaration of title along with permanent injunctions, asserting that the properties had been partitioned during the lifetime of the original owner, Muruga Mandiri, prior to 1982 (!) (!) (!) .
The defendant's case included the assertion that the properties remained joint family properties, with no effective partition, and that the plaintiff's sale deed was not valid or enforceable, claiming possession and ownership rights based on revenue records and bona fide purchase (!) (!) (!) .
The courts below analyzed the evidence and found that the properties were undivided at the relevant times, and that the sale deeds executed by the legal heirs were valid. They also examined the issue of limitation, concluding that the suit was not barred by time (!) (!) .
A significant legal issue was whether the suit was properly constituted, particularly regarding the non-joinder of all necessary parties, specifically the legal heirs of Muruga Mandiri. The courts held that the suit was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, as all legal heirs should have been impleaded to properly adjudicate the rights and interests involved (!) (!) .
The courts emphasized that in cases of property partition, all shares and heirs are necessary parties, and failure to join them renders the suit liable to dismissal. The absence of necessary parties prevents a proper and final determination of the rights over the properties (!) (!) .
The appellate court ultimately found that the non-joinder of necessary parties was a fatal flaw, leading to the dismissal of the suit in its entirety. Consequently, the second appeal was allowed, and the judgments below were set aside (!) .
The legal principles applicable include the importance of proper party impleadment under procedural rules, the presumption of joint ownership in the absence of clear partition evidence, and the necessity of joining all legal heirs in property disputes to ensure fair adjudication (!) (!) .
In summary, the core reason for the dismissal of the suit was the non-joinder of all necessary parties, which prevented a comprehensive resolution of the property rights and led to the suit's failure.
1. The following are the brief averments contained in the plaint in O.S. No. 270 of 1998:
1(a) One Muruga Mandiri and his wife Ammakannamal @ Ammal had two sons by names Munusamy Mandiri and Macha Mandiri and two daughters, Chokkammal and Rajeswari. Muruga Mandiri his wife and two sons died, two daughters 3rd and 4th defendant are still alive. Muruga Mandiri was the absolute owner of the suit property. During his life time, prior to 1982, he effected division of ‘A’ schedule properties into two shares and allotted each share to his sons. On the date of death of Muruga Mandiri he had no properties on his own. Hence, his wife and daughters (defendants 3 and 4) did not inherit any right in the ‘A’ Schedule properties.
1(b) In the partition ‘B’ Schedule properties and other properties were all allotted to the share of Munusamy Mandiri and he also sold a portion of ‘B’ Schedule property to the plaintiff under a registered Sale Deed dated 6.12.1982 for a consideration of Rs. 2,000/- and since then the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the schedule property in her own right and title and interest by paying kist and enjoying the properties by cultivation and she perfected title to ‘A’ schedule property by adverse possession also. After selling the schedule property the said Munusamy Mandri colluding himself with his divided share to Macha Mandri his mother Ammakannu @ Ayyammal and his sisters defendants 3 and 4, fraudulently sold the entire ‘A’ schedule property to the defendants 1 and 2 under a registered sale deed dated 9.1.1989. The ‘A’ schedule property includes ‘B’ schedule property. Munusamy Mandiri having sold the ‘B’ schedule property namely his separate property under a registered sale deed to the plaintiff, he has no right to convey any right title or interest over the ‘B’ schedule property in favour of defendants 1 and 2. Hence, the plaintiff issued notice dated 21.4.1998 for which the defendants 3 and 4 sent reply containing false allegation that there was no partition during the life time of Muruga Mandiri and the entire ‘A’ schedule property continuous to be joint family property. The plaintiff reiterate her case of partition prior to 1982 during the life time of Muruga Mandiri she claims absolute right over the schedule property. Therefore, the plaintiff filed this suit for declaring title to the ‘B’ schedule property in her favour and for granting permanent injunction or in alternative divide the ‘A’ schedule property in to 15 shares or divide 5t shares and allot 1 share to Munusamy Mandiri and to confirm the ‘B’ Schedule property in favour of the plaintiff.
2. In the written statement filed by the 2nd defendant which was adopted by the 1st defendant, it is averred as follows:
2(a) This defendant admits only the realtionship as set out in para 1 of the plaint, that Muruga Mandiri was the absolute owner of ‘A’ Schedule properties. It is false to state that even during the lifetime of Muruga Mandiri he effected division of ‘A’ Schedule properties into 2 shares and allotted one such share to Munusamy Mandiri, that it is also false to state that the said Muruga Mandiri did not posses any property for himself, on the date of his death, that the defendants are not aware of the alleged purchase made by the plaintiff by a registered sale deed dated 6.12.82, that in any event, event it were to be true, the alleged sale deed was neither acted upon nor did the plaintiff ever get into possession of the same under the alleged sale deed as there was no division and allotment of the entire extent of Ac.1.45 in Survey No. 269 at any point of time.
2(b) In fact, the defendants had purchased the entire extent of Ac.1.45 in Survey No. 269 alongwtith other items of properties for a sum of Rs. 54,700/- on 9.1.89 under a registered sale deed from all the legal heirs of late Muruga Mandiri, who purchased the same vide sale deed dated 4.11.1949. All the revenue records stand in either name only and the entire boundaries of
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
