Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
C.V. KARTHIKEYAN, J.
Michael Ammal (died) and others – Appellant
Vs.
M.Regina Celine and others – Respondent
A.S.(MD) No. 164 of 2014
Decided On : 04-05-2017
Indian Succession Act - Property Dispute - Sections 33, 35 - The court discussed the provisions of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, particularly Sections 33 and 35, and their application to the dispute. The court highlighted the rules of succession and the implications of the two conflicting wills presented by the parties. The judgment was influenced by the interpretation of these legal provisions and their application to the facts of the case.
Fact of the Case:
The suit involved a property dispute between three sisters and the defendants, who were Roman Catholics governed by the Indian Succession Act, 1925. The dispute arose from conflicting claims regarding the ownership and distribution of a property purchased by the plaintiffs' parents.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the property was jointly purchased by the parents of the parties, and the conflicting wills presented by the parties were not proved in accordance with the law. Consequently, the court granted a preliminary decree, dividing the property among the parties based on the rules of succession under the Indian Succession Act, 1925.
Issues: The main issues included the nature of the suit property, the validity and binding nature of the conflicting wills, the possibility of passing a preliminary decree for property division, and the entitlement of the parties to reliefs.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the finding that the property was jointly purchased, the conflicting wills were not proved in accordance with the law, and the rules of succession under the Indian Succession Act, 1925, governed the distribution of the property among the parties.
Final Decision: The appeal was partly allowed, granting the second appellant an undivided 3/12th share in the suit property and the three respondents jointly entitled to an undivided 9/12th share. The judgment and decree of the Trial Court were set aside.
Key Points:- (!) (!) - (!) - (!) (!) - [21001237580011] (!) - [21001237580012] (!) - [21001237580016] (!)
The defendants in O.S.No.137 of 2009 on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge (PCR), Tiruchirrappalli, aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 07.09.2012 made in the said suit, have filed this appeal.
2. O.S.No.137 of 2009 had been filed by three sisters, namely, M.Regina Celine, M.Kamseeli and L.M.Josephine Mary. They were all daughters of late Michaelsamy and late Kitheri Ammal. Their mother Kitheri Ammal died on 13.10.1978. In 1979, their father Michaelsamy married the first defendant Michael Ammal and through them, the second defendant M.Martin was born. The plaintiffs and the defendants are Roman Catholics and the provisions of Indian Succession Act, 1925, apply to them. It had been stated that the plaintiff's father Michael Samy died on 01.02.1991. They stated that there was a Will, which was acknowledged by the first defendant on 10.03.1991, in front of two witnesses. It is seen from the date that the Will is after the date of death of Michael Samy. It had been stated that there was an earlier Will, which was registered on 13.05.1981.
3. According to the Will dated 10.03.1991, the property, which is subject matter of litigation, should be sold and the money is to be distributed according to the said Will. The property is situated in Ponmalaipatti Village, Varaganeri Punja S.F.No.71/BB4F, measuring out of 36 cents, 5 cents in Re-Survey No.73/B1A, out of 61 cents, 5 cents in Ponmalai Panchayat Board. The plaintiffs stated that the property was purchased jointly by their father Michael Samy and their mother Kitheri Ammal in the year 1971. Since, the property was the property of their parents, the plaintiffs claimed one half of the share of their mother's share and the share from their father. They, therefore, claimed 3/4th share in the suit property. They further stated that 1/6th share should go to the first defendant and 1/12th share should go to the second defendant. It had been stated that the plaintiffs had married and are residing with their husbands. The first and second defendants were trying to alienate their property. A legal notice dated 28.08.2008 was issued seeking partition, for which the defendants issued a reply notice. Claiming partition and seperate possession of 3/4th share according to the provisions of Indian Succession Act, 1925, the suit had been filed for partition and seperate possession and for costs.
4. In the written statement filed by the second defendant and adopted by the first defendant, it had been stated that the plaintiffs are not entitled to get any share of the property, since it had been purchased by the husband of the first defendant and the father of the second defendant from his own income. It was claimed that he was employed in the Railways. It was further claimed that the mother of the plaintiffs Kitheri Ammal did not have any income and the property stood in her name jointly out of love and affection alone. It had been stated that a Will had been executed by Michael Samy.
5. It had been further stated that the plaintiffs were given lot of money and gold articles during their marriage and whenever they came home. It had also been stated that the Will dated 13.05.1981, has specifically ousted the plaintiffs. The defendants claimed that the suit should be dismissed.
6. On the basis of the above pleadings, the learned I Additional District Judge, Tiruchchirappalli, had framed the following issues.
1. Whether the suit property is a self acquired property of Michael Samy or individual property of Michael Samy?
2. Whether the will dated 13.05.1981 would bind the plaintiffs?
3. Whether the will dated 10.03.1991 would bind the defendants?
4. Whether a preliminary decree can be passed dividing the suit property into 12 equal parts and allotting nine shares to the plaintiffs, two shares to the first defendant and one share to the second defendant?
5. To what reliefs are the parties entitled to?
7. The parties went to trial. During the trial, the first plaintiff M.Regina
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
