Back
2014 Supreme(Mad) 4398
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.R. Shivakumar, J.
S. Balakrishnan and Others
Versus
S. Ayyammal (Deceased) and Others
A.S. No. 689 of 2004, C.M.P. No. 10667 of 2004 and C.M.P. No. 47 of 2014
Decided on: 4 April 2014
V. Nicholas, for Appellants CH. Pandian, for Respondents
The main legal point established is that the Benami Transactions Prohibition Act bars claims of benami purchase and protects self-acquired property.
Headnote:
Benami Transactions Prohibition Act - Property Dispute - Section 3, Section 4 - The court found that the property was purchased and constructed by the first defendant with her own funds and funds provided by her son, and the claim of the appellants that the purchase was benami was barred by section 4 of the Benami Transactions Prohibition Act, 1988.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants, sons and daughters of the deceased first respondent, filed a suit for partition claiming that the property purchased in the name of the first respondent was actually owned by their father. The Trial Court dismissed the suit, and the appellants appealed.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the property was self-acquired by the first respondent and the appellants' claim of benami purchase was not substantiated. The court also held that the Benami Transactions Prohibition Act barred the appellants' claim.
Issues: The main issues were whether the property was self-acquired by the first respondent, whether the appellants were entitled to partition, and the effect of the Benami Transactions Prohibition Act on the appellants' claim.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the property was self-acquired by the first respondent and the appellants' claim of benami purchase was barred by the Benami Transactions Prohibition Act.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, confirming the Trial Court's decree. The court also dismissed the appellants' claim for succession to the property of the deceased first respondent.
1. The unsuccessful plaintiffs in O.S.No.198 of 2003, which was dismissed by the Trial Judge viz., learned Additional District Judge/Fast Track Court I, Coimbatore by his judgment and decree dated 30.9.2003, are the appellants in the appeal. Initially, the defendants 1 to 5 therein have been arrayed as respondents 1 to 5 in the appeal. During the pendency of the appeal, the first respondent Ayyammal died and appellants 1 to 3 and the remaining respondents viz., respondents 2 to 5 have been recorded as her legal representatives.
2. Admittedly, the suit property had been purchased under a sale deed dated 10.2.1946, a certified copy of which has been produced as Ex.A2. The vendor under the said sale deed was none other than Nanjappa Gounder, the father of the decreased first respondent Ayyammal. Ayyammal’s husband was one Subbia Gounder. Their sons are appellants 1 and 2/plaintiffs 1 and 2 and respondents 2 to 4/defendants 2 to 4. The third appellant/third plaintiff and the fifth respondent/fifth defendant are their daughters. The appellants/plaintiffs claim that the purchase made under the original of Ex.A2 sale deed was not made with the funds of the purchaser therein viz., Ayyammal and on the other hand, the sale deed came to be executed by Nanjappa Gounder because Ayyammal’s husband Subbiah Gounder discharged the usufructuary mortgage executed in favour of one Lakshmi Ammal. The certified copy of the said mortgage deed dated 25.1.1944 came to be produced as Ex.A1 before the Trial Court. It was the further contention of the appellants/plaintiffs that, after the purchase of the property in the name of Ayyammal, the ground floor and first floor portions were constructed with the funds provided by Subbiah Gounder and his two daughters viz., the third appellant/third plaintiff and the fifth respondent/fifth defendant. Based on their contention that the property was the property of Subbiah Gounder though it stood in the name of Ayyammal, the appellants/plaintiffs had filed the suit praying for partition.
3. The respondents/defendants resisted the suit contending that the suit property was the self-acquired property of Ayyammal, who purchased it from the income derived by her from the Tiffin shop she was running for several years. It was the further contention of the respondents/defendants that constructions were put up with the funds available with Ayyammal derived from her business and also the funds provided by her elder son viz., the second respondent/second defendant in addition to her own funds.
4. The learned Trial Judge framed three issues which are as follows:
1) Whether the suit property is the self-acquired property of the first defendant and as such not liable to be partitioned?
2) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to 3/8 share as claimed by them in the plaint?
3) To what reliefs the plaintiffs are entitled?
5. In the Trial, only the party witnesses deposed and no independent witness was examined. The first appellant/first plaintiff figured as PW1, the third appellant/third plaintiff figured as PW2, the first respondent/first defendant (deceased Ayyammal) figured as DW1 and the second respondent/second defendant Natarajan figured as DW2. As many as eight documents were produced on the side of the plaintiffs as Exs.A1 to A8, whereas 26 documents were produced and marked as Exs.B1 to B26 on the side of the respondents herein/defendants.
6. At the conclusion of Trial, appreciating the evidence, the learned Trial Judge rendered a finding that the claim of the appellants herein/plaintiffs that Subbiah Gounder, the husband of the first respondent herein/first defendant, discharged the usufructuary mortgage created in favour of Lakshmi Ammal, was not proved by evidence. The learned Trial Judge also held that the contention of the appellants herein/plaintiffs that the suit property was conveyed by the father of the first respondent herein/first defendant in favour of the first respondent herein/first defendant for the amount p
