Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
ARUNA JAGADEESAN, J.
K.R. Rajeesh Kumar & Another
Versus
K. Nalini Raghavan & Others
CS. Nos. 469 of 2008 & 847 of 2009
Decided on: 25-06-2014
The court examined the legal framework applicable to the case, including the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988, and the Indian Succession Act, 1956, to determine the ownership and entitlement to the disputed properties.
Fact of the Case:
The Plaintiff, one of the sons of the late K.P.Raghavan, filed a suit for partition and separate possession of two properties, referred to as Schedule I and Schedule II, claiming that they were joint family properties. The Plaintiff alleged that his father had purchased the properties benami in the name of his wife, the 1st Defendant, and that he was entitled to a 1/4th share in each property. The 1st Defendant, the Plaintiff's mother, contested the claim, asserting that she was the exclusive owner of the properties and that she had settled the Schedule I property in favor of her daughter, the 2nd Defendant. In a separate suit, the 2nd Defendant sought to recover possession of a portion of the Schedule I property that was occupied by the Plaintiff and his brother, the 3rd Defendant.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Plaintiff failed to discharge the burden of proving that the Schedule I property was purchased benami in the name of the 1st Defendant. The court noted that the sale deed was executed in the 1st Defendant's name, that she had paid the sale consideration from her own funds, and that she had been in possession of the property since its purchase. The court also found that the Plaintiff failed to establish that the Schedule II property was a joint family property, as he had not provided any evidence to show that his father had contributed to its purchase or that it was intended to be held for the benefit of the family.
Issues: 1. Whether the Schedule I property was purchased benami in the name of the 1st Defendant? 2. Whether the Plaintiff was entitled to a 1/4th share in the Schedule I and Schedule II properties? 3. Whether the 2nd Defendant was entitled to recover possession of the portion of the Schedule I property occupied by the Plaintiff and the 3rd Defendant?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Plaintiff failed to prove that the Schedule I property was purchased benami in the name of the 1st Defendant. The court noted that the sale deed was executed in the 1st Defendant's name, that she had paid the sale consideration from her own funds, and that she had been in possession of the property since its purchase. The court also found that the Plaintiff failed to establish that the Schedule II property was a joint family property, as he had not provided any evidence to show that his father had contributed to its purchase or that it was intended to be held for the benefit of the family. Therefore, the court dismissed the Plaintiff's suit for partition and separate possession of the Schedule I property and granted the 2nd Defendant's suit for recovery of possession of the portion of the Schedule I property occupied by the Plaintiff and the 3rd Defendant.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the Plaintiff's suit for partition and separate possession of the Schedule I property and granted the 2nd Defendant's suit for recovery of possession of the portion of the Schedule I property occupied by the Plaintiff and the 3rd Defendant. The court also directed that a preliminary decree for partition allotting 1/4th share to the parties in CS.No.469/2008 in so far as schedule II (Ambattur property) is concerned, is passed.
1. CS.No.469/2008 has been filed to pass a judgement and decree in favour of the plaintiff as follows:-
(a) to pass a preliminary decree, declaring that the plaintiff is entitled to 1/4th undivided share in the plaint schedule property and to effect a partition and separate possession of the plaintiff's share by metes and bounds,
(a)(i) to pass a preliminary decree declaring that the plaintiff is entitled to 1/4th undivided share in the plaint schedule II property and to effect a partition and separate possession of the plaintiff's share by metes and bounds
(b) to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to effect division of the plaint schedule property and allot separate possession in respective shares of the plaintiff and the defendants.
(c) to grant a permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 and 2 from alienating the plaint schedule property including the share of the plaintiff and the defendants in the plaint schedule property, and
(d) to award costs of the suit.
2. CS.No.847/2009 has been filed to pass a judgement and decree against the Defendants as follows:-
(a) directing the Defendants to vacate and hand over possession of the portion occupied in the suit schedule mentioned property viz. Two rooms measuring 1000 sq.ft. at “Kalyani”, Old No.28, New No.25, South Beach Avenue, MRC Nagar, Chennai-28 to the Plaintiff,
(b) directing the Defendants to make payment of a sum of Rs.5,20,000/- being the rent payable from July, 2007 till the date of the plaint and subsequently till handing over the same,
(c) granting injunction restraining the Defendants from causing any damage to the property at “Kalyani”, Old No.28, New No.25, South Beach Avenue, MRC Nagar, Chennai-28 belonging to the Plaintiff inclusive and not restricted to the two rooms in their occupation and
(d) to award costs of the suit
3. Since both the suits are interconnected and the subject matter, the parties and the facts and circumstances are one and the same, these suits are disposed of by this common judgement.
4. The plaint averments in CS.No.469/2008 are as follows:-
a. The Plaintiff is one of the founder Directors of M/s.Varnam Printing Inks (P) Limited, which carried on the business of manufacturing and marketing of printing inks at Ambattur, Chennai and he is living with his wife and daughter in the bungalow at “Kalyani” Old No.28 and New No.25, South Beach Avenue, MRC Nagar, Chennai-28, which is described in the schedule. In the said premises, the Plaintiff's mother, younger brother and sister, the Defendants 1 to 3 are also living together with the Plaintiff right from the date of occupation in 1984 after its construction. The Plaintiff and his brother, the 3rd Defendant got married in the years 2004 and 2005 respectively and are living with their wives in the above bungalow and they have a daughter each. The sister of the Plaintiff, the 2nd Defendant got married in the year 2007 and is likely to join her husband at Sharjah where he is working.
b. The father of the Plaintiff Late K.P.Raghavan was working in M/s.Coates of India Limited, Calcutta, a leading printing ink manufacturer in India, as a Technical Staff since 1949 and was subsequently posted at Chennai as Technical Manager in the year 1960. While in service, he was nurturing an idea of starting a concern by himself to manufacture and market printing inks, by making use of his deep technical knowledge in the manufacture of printing inks. In the last leg of his service, the he promoted a proprietary concern in 1965 by name M/s.Kandyan Enterprises at Chennai to buy and sell printing inks, naming his wife, the 1st Defendant herein as its Proprietor, as he could not use his name during the period of service. The father of the Plaintiff left his job in October 1965 and by investing his provident funds and other financial benefits received from his Company, carried on the business in a small scale by buying and selling the printing inks in the market with the help of his known customer. Therea
AI
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
