Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R. SUBBIAH & M.S. RAMESH, JJ.
Mrs. C. Chitralekha and others – Appellants
Vs.
Mrs. R. Ranganayaki and others – Respondents
A.S.No.505 of 2013 and M.P.No.1 of 2013 and C.M.P.No.4573 of 2017
Decided On : 05-04-2017
Partition - Hindu Succession Act - [Issue of oral partition, sale of property, and subsequent purchaser] - [Hindu Succession Act]
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, wife of the deceased Ranganathan, filed a suit for partition of properties left by her husband. The trial court rejected the defendants' claim of oral partition and decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff. The defendants appealed, claiming suppression of oral partition and sale of property by the plaintiff.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the defendants failed to provide evidence of oral partition and that the plaintiff had only sold a 3/4th share of the property, not the entire property. The appeal was dismissed, allowing the parties to apply to implead the subsequent purchaser in the final decree proceedings.
Issues: The issues included the existence of oral partition, entitlement to partition, and the sale of property by the plaintiff.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that without evidence, the claim of oral partition could not be substantiated. Additionally, it determined that the plaintiff had only sold a portion of the property, not the entire property.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the parties were allowed to apply to implead the subsequent purchaser in the final decree proceedings.
Key Points: - The main legal point established is that claims of oral partition must be substantiated with evidence [judgement_subject]. - The sale of property by one party does not necessarily invalidate the partition proceedings [judgement_subject]. - The plaintiff, wife of the deceased Ranganathan, filed a suit for partition of properties left by her husband [Fact of the Case]. - The trial court rejected the defendants' claim of oral partition and decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff [Fact of the Case]. - The defendants appealed, claiming suppression of oral partition and sale of property by the plaintiff [Fact of the Case]. - The court found that the defendants failed to provide evidence of oral partition [Finding of the Court]. - The court also found that the plaintiff had only sold a 3/4th share of the property, not the entire property [Finding of the Court]. - The appeal was dismissed, allowing the parties to apply to implead the subsequent purchaser in the final decree proceedings [Finding of the Court]. - Without evidence, the claim of oral partition could not be substantiated [Ratio Decidendi]. - The plaintiff had only sold a portion of the property, not the entire property [Ratio Decidendi]. - The appeal was dismissed, and the parties were allowed to apply to implead the subsequent purchaser in the final decree proceedings [Final Decision]. - In order to prove the defence of oral partition, absolutely no evidence was adduced by the appellants/defendants 2 to 4 before the trial Court [21001239380016]. - What was sold by the plaintiff is only a 3/4th share of the property, not the entire property [21001239380018]. - The parties are at liberty to take appropriate application before the Trial Court to implead the subsequent purchaser in respect of the suit Item No.1 property in the final decree proceedings before the Court below and to get appropriate relief [21001239380019].
R.Subbiah, J.
Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 28.03.2013 passed by the learned I Additional District Judge, in the suit filed by the 1st respondent herein/plaintiff for partition in O.S.No.428 of 2010, the present appeal has been filed by the appellants/defendants 2 to 4.
2. The appellants herein are the defendants 2 to 4, the 1st respondent herein is the plaintiff and the respondents 2 & 3 herein are the defendants 1 & 5 respectively in the suit.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as per ranking in the suit.
4. The case of the plaintiff in brief is as follows_
4-1. The plaintiff is the wife of one deceased Ranganathan. The 1st defendant R.Vijayakumar, one R.Chandramohan (deceased) and the 5th defendant R.Kalimani are the sons and daughter of the plaintiff. The defendants 2 to 4 (appellants herein) are the legal heirs of the deceased Chandramohan viz., wife and sons.
4-2. It is the case of the plaintiff that her husband Ranganathan owned three items of properties mentioned in the suit schedule as Item 1 to 3. The said properties are self-acquired properties of the deceased Ranganathan and he was doing transport business under the name and style of 'Coimbatore Palghat Transport', having its office at Uppara Lane, Thomas Street, Coimbatore. He purchased the said three properties out of his own earnings. Suit Item 1 property is situated at Koppam Village, Palghat Town, Kerala. The said property was purchased by the deceased Ranganathan under a registered Sale Deed dated 24.07.1983 registered as Doc.No.880/1983 before the DRO, Palghat and it is a residential building measuring to an extent of 6 cents. Suit Item No.1 property was used by the deceased Ranganathan as transport office-cum-delivery point at Palghat.
4-3. Suit Item No. 2 property is a building situated within the Coimbatore Corporation limit, measuring to an extent of 675 sq. ft and the said property was used as collection centre cum office at Coimbatore. The said property was purchased under registered Sale Deed dated 29.08.1991 registered as Doc.No.3804/1991. This property was also purchased by the said Ranganathan out of his own earnings and savings.
4-4. The said deceased Ranganathan had also purchased two vacant sites at Kuniyamuthur by way of registered Sale Deeds dated 15.11.1990 and 23.07.1993 respectively. The said Ranganathan had constructed RCC Terrace house in the said property and the said property has been mentioned in the suit schedule as Item No.3 property.
4-5. The said Ranganathan died on 03.08.1995. After the demise of the said Ranganathan, his wife-plaintiff and sons & daughters namely defendants 1 & 5 and the deceased Chandramohan succeeded to his properties and they were in joint possession and enjoyment of the same. The plaintiff and the defendants 1 & 5 are Class-1 legal heirs of the deceased Ranganathan. The defendants 2 to 4, who are the legal heirs of the deceased Chandramohan, are also entitled to their shares in the suit schedule properties, as per the Hindu Succession Act.
4-6. The plaintiff, being the mother of the defendants 1 & 5 and grand-mother of the defendants 3 & 4 respectively, tried to make an amicable partition of the properties. But, all her efforts for amicable partition of the properties became futile. Hence, she sent a legal notices to the defendants 1 to 5 for amicable partition on 31.07.2009 and 09.10.2009. The defendants 1 & 5 in their reply consented for partition. But, the defendants 2 to 4, who are the legal heirs of the deceased Chandramohan, sent a reply dated 05.08.2009, with false averments. Hence, left with no other alternative, the plaintiff, wife of the deceased Ranganathan, filed the suit in O.S.No.498 of 2010 for dividing the suit item Nos.1 to 3 properties in four equal share by metes and bounds and to allot 1/4th share in her favour and also for separate possession.
5. Before the Trial Court, the defendants 1 & 5 (the respondents 2 & 3 herein) have filed a memo submittin
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
