SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2017 Supreme(Mad) 21

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G. JAYACHANDRAN, J.
Chinnasamy (Deceased) & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Dhanabagyam @ Seethalakshmi & Ors. - Respondents
S.A.No.1148 of 2003
Decided On : 05-01-2017

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Mr. V. Nicholas.
For the Respondents: Mr. T. Rajasekaran, Mr. K.A. Ramakrishnan, Mr. K. Srinivasan, Mr. A. Muthuraman, Mr. B. Gnana Vinodhan.

Headnote:

Civil Suit - Suit is for declaration, possession, mesne profit past and future – Legal Heirs - Documents are fake and fraudulent documents - They were arrayed as plaintiffs 1 to 9 respectively against T.S. Subbaraya Manikkar and 9 others - Pending suit, first appeal and second appeal, many of original contesting parties died and their legal heirs are arrayed as parties to lis - Suit properties originally belonged to one Chennanna Manikkar and Thirthagiri Manikkar - They both constitute Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) and they were enjoying property jointly from 1913. Chennanna Manikkar died leaving behind his wife and two daughters. One of his daughter died in 1926 and his wife died in year 1935 - Sole heir of Chennanna Manikkar was his daughter Kalyaniammal, who lived till 1959 - Thirthagiri Manikkar, who was brother of Chennanna Manikkar, died in the year 1939, leaving behind his wife Thangamuthuammal and his daughter Savithriammal - Held, This Court, after giving consideration to rival claims and on perusing judgment of Courts below, could not find any substantial ground to interfere with findings of Courts below - Appellant is admittedly a third party purchaser of suit property from deceased Savithriammal - Unregistered sale deed relied by appellant, is whereas the executor of sale deed Savithriammal died - If date of agreement is reckoned as starting point of limitation, present suit filed is well within a period of limitation of 12 years - Therefore, looking at from any angle, plea of adverse possession is not in favour of appellant - Court has no second opinion that appellant has lost his claim of title over property based on Ex.B6, sale deed, since competent civil Court has already heard and decided issue against appellant and it has reached finality - Second Appeal is dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

The suit is for declaration, possession, mesne profit past and future. The second defendant is the appellant herein. He has filed this appeal aggrieved by the concurrent findings of the Court below.

2. The brief facts of the case is as follows:-

a. The suit was filed by one Nagaraja Manikkar and the legal heirs of Andiappa Manikkar. They were arrayed as plaintiffs 1 to 9 respectively against T.S. Subbaraya Manikkar and 9 others. Pending suit, the first appeal and the second appeal, many of the original contesting parties died and their legal heirs are arrayed as parties to the lis.

b. The suit properties originally belonged to one Chennanna Manikkar and Thirthagiri Manikkar. They both constitute Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) and they were enjoying the property jointly from 1913. Chennanna Manikkar died leaving behind his wife and two daughters. One of his daughter died in 1926 and his wife died in the year 1935. The sole heir of Chennanna Manikkar was his daughter Kalyaniammal, who lived till 1959.

c. Thirthagiri Manikkar, who was the brother of Chennanna Manikkar, died in the year 1939, leaving behind his wife Thangamuthuammal and his daughter Savithriammal. Thangamuthuammal executed a settlement deed in favour of Kalyaniammal on 05.10.1939, with limited interest for life upon Kalyaniammal and after her demise, the property absolutely vested with the legal heirs of Thirthagiri Manikkar.

d. On the death of Kalyaniammal on 27.04.1959, the property reverted back to Thangamuthuammal and Savithriammal, they being the legal heirs of Thirthagiri Manikkar. While so, one Andiyappa Manikkar claimed right over the property through a gift deed alleged to have been executed by Kalyaniammal and interfered with the possession of the suit properties. Therefore, Thangamuthuammal and Savithriammal jointly filed O.S.No.27 of 1959 before the Salem Munsif Court in respect of properties situated at Thaiyur village. After instituting the suit, Thangamuthuammal died on 17.11.1959 leaving behind her only daughter Savithriammal as her sole legal representative. In respect of the other properties shown in the suit schedule, Savithriammal filed a suit against Andiappa Manikkar before the Sub Court, Salem, which was numbered as O.S.No.26 of 1961. Both the suits were later transferred to Krishnagiri District Court and renumbered as O.S.Nos.09 of 1965 and 10 of 1965.

e. Pending the above said suits, Savithriammal died. There were 4 Interlocutory applications taken out by four different persons to get themselves impleaded as legal heirs of Savithriammal, in which, the Court declared Nagaraja Manikkar as the legal heir of Savithriammal in I.A.No.31 of 1967 by Order dated 07.04.1969. The said Nagaraj Manikkar is the first plaintiff in this suit.

f. In the above suits, Subbraya Manikkar the first defendant in the present suit filed an application to come on record as legatee under a Will alleged to have been executed by Savithriammal. The Trial Court permitted him to watch the proceedings, but declined his request to contest as a party. Under these circumstances, the contesting parties Nagaraja Manikkar and legal heirs of Andiyappa Manikkar in O.S.No.09 of 1965 and 10 of 1965 arrived at a settlement and obtained a compromise decree dated 30.09.1970. The properties, which are the subject matter of the present appeal, are same as that of the properties in O.S.No.09 of 1965 and 10 of 1965.

The suit in the present appeal filed for recovery of possession by Nagaraja Manikkar and others from the defendants, who are either tenants under the first defendant or tresspassers.

g. The defendants contested the suit on the ground that he is entitled for the suit property as legatee of Savithriammal under her Will dated 21.12.1966. He is the son of Savithriammal's maternal uncle and he is in absolute possession and enjoyment of the entire suit property for more than 12 years and neither Thangamuthuammal nor her daughter Savithriammal were in possession and enjoyment of the s




















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top