Back
2014 Supreme(Mad) 2429
High Court of Judicature at Madras
S. VIMALA, J.
Gandhi & Others
Versus
Yasothai Ammal & Another
Second Appeal Nos. 915 to 917 of 2005 & CMP Nos. 12687 to 12687 of 2005
Decided On : 12-08-2014
For the Appellants:R. Margabandhu, Advocate.
For the Respondents:T.R. Rajaraman, Advocate.
The judgment emphasizes the importance of documentary evidence, continuous possession, and the burden of proof in property disputes.
Headnote:
Genealogy - Property Dispute - 1942 Sale Deed - Oral Partition - Continuous Possession - Settlement Deed - Validity - Allotment of Property - Estoppel - Admitted Facts - Evidence Analysis
Fact of the Case:
The case involves a property dispute over an extent of 52 cents originally belonging to Poongavana Gounder. The plaintiffs sought declaration of title and possession, claiming continuous possession since an oral partition in 1980. The defendants claimed rights through settlement deeds executed by Chinnapaiya Gounder in 1993.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court found in favor of the plaintiffs, relying on documentary evidence and continuous possession. The appellate court upheld the decision, emphasizing the lack of evidence supporting the defendants' claims.
Issues: Main issues included the allotment of the property, validity of settlement deeds, and the applicability of estoppel. Substantial questions of law focused on evidence, conduct, and character of the parties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court analyzed the evidence, including oral partition, settlement deeds, and continuous possession, to determine the allotment of the property and the validity of the defendants' claims. It emphasized the lack of evidence supporting the defendants' contentions.
Final Decision: The second appeals were dismissed, and the trial court's decision in favor of the plaintiffs was upheld.
1. The parties are referred to, as per the nomenclature assigned to them, in the suit filed in O.S.No.336 of 1995, wherein Yashothai Ammal is the first plaintiff, Ezhumalai is the second plaintiff, Gandhi is the first defendant and Krishnan is the second defendant.
1.1. Krishan is the plaintiff in O.S.No.273 of 1996 where-under Yashothai Ammal and Ezhumalai are defendants 1 and 2.
1.2. Gandhi is the plaintiff in O.S.No.276 of 1996, in which Yashothai Ammal and Ezhumalai are defendants 1 and 2.
2. Suit in O.S.No.336 of 1995 was filed by the plaintiffs for declaration of plaintiffs' title to the suit property and for directing the defendants to deliver possession of the suit property to the plaintiffs.
3. The genealogy of the parties and case details are important to explain the case properly and clearly, which reads thus:
Genealogy of the parties
Joint Property in the name of Poongavana Gounder
………………………………………………….
¦
…………………………………………………..
¦ ¦ ¦
Poongavana Gounder (died) Chinnapaiya Gounder Chinnakutti Gounder
¦ Wife – Yashothai (P1)
¦ Defendant
¦ ¦ subsequent
¦¦Purchaser
Elumalai (P2) Pachaiyammal (No issue)
Case Details
S. No. Parties to O.S. No. 336/1995 Parties to A.S. No. 19/2003 Parties to S.A. No. 915/2005
Plaintiffs Defendants Appellants Respondent Appellants Respondent
1. 1. Yasothai Ammal
2. Ezhumalai 1. Gandhi
2. Krishnan 1. Gandhi
2. Krishnan 1. Yasothai Ammal
2. Ezhumalai 1. Gandhi
2. Krishnan 1. Yasothai Ammal
2. Ezhumalai
S. No. Parties to O.S. No. 273/1996 Parties to A.S. No. 32/2003 Parties to S.A. No. 916/2005
Plaintiffs Defendants Appellants Respondent Appellants Respondent
1. Krishnan 1. Yasothai Ammal
2. Ezhumalai Gandhi Gounder
1. Yasothai Ammal
2. Ezhumalai Krishnan 1. Yasothai Ammal
2. Ezhumalai
S. No. Parties to O.S. No. 276/1996 Parties to A.S. No. 23/2003 Parties to S.A. No. 917/2005
Plaintiffs Defendants Appellants Respondent Appellants Respondent
1. Gandhi 1. Yasothai Ammal
2. Ezhumalai Gandhi Gounder
1. Yasothai Ammal
2. Ezhumalai Gandhi Gounder 1. Yasothai Ammal
2. Ezhumalai
Brief facts:-
4. The suit property is an extent of 52 cents situated in Nambedu Village, Polur Taluk, Tiruvannamalai District. The suit property originally belonged to Poongavana Gounder, who is the husband of the first plaintiff and father of the second plaintiff. The suit property was purchased by Poongavana Gounder, through a sale deed, dated 12.04.1942, in the capacity as eldest member of the joint hindu family. The two brothers of Poongavana Gounder, namely, Chinnapaiya Gounder and Chinnakutty Gounder were the members of the joint family.
4.1. In the year 1980, there was an oral partition among all the three of them, covering the suit property as well as other joint family properties. In the oral partition, the suit property along with other items were allotted to the share of Poongavana Gounder. Thereafter, the suit property was in separate possession of Poongavana Gounder. Poongavana Gounder died leaving behind the plaintiffs as Legal Representatives.
4.2. The defendants are divided paternal uncles' sons. They have no right over the suit property. They unlawfully took possession of the suit properties by the end of the year 1994. The documents created by them will not bind the plaintiffs. The defendants should be restrained from alienating or encumbering the suit properties.
4.3. The case of Gandhi Gounder (the first defendant in O.S.No.336 of 1995 and the plaintiff in O.S.No.276 of 1996) is as follows:-
In the year 1986, there was an oral partition by way of family arrangement in respect of the suit property as well as other joint family properties; the suit property was allotted to the share of Chinnapaiya Gounder; Chinnapaiya Gounder executed a settlement deed, dated 05.08.1993, in favour of his wife, Pachaiyammal; she accepted the settlement and acted upon the same; Pachaiyammal sold the part of the property, i.e., 26 cents, to Gandhi Gounder on 04.07.1995; thereafter, Gandhi Gounder was in possession and enjoyment of th
