Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
C.V. KARTHIKEYAN, J.
Mrs. V.Shanthakumari – Appellant
Vs.
Mr. G.Sambandan – Respondent
C.S.No.718 of 2012
Decided on : 28-08-2017
Partition Deed - Property Dispute - Tamil Nadu Amendment to the Hindu Succession Act - Sec. 6 - Validity of Partition Deed - Binding Sale Deed - Court Fees - Preliminary Decree
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs sought declaration that the Partition Deed and Sale Deed were sham and nominal, and for partition of the properties. The defendants claimed that the partition was valid and the plaintiffs were not entitled to relief due to the Tamil Nadu Amendment to the Hindu Succession Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Partition Deed was valid and binding, as the plaintiffs had full knowledge and consent. The Sale Deed executed by the third defendant was upheld. The plaintiffs were held entitled to an undivided one sixth share in the ancestral property.
Issues: The issues included the validity of the Partition Deed, Sale Deed, maintainability of the suit, limitation, and payment of court fees.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Partition Deed was valid and binding, and the Sale Deed was upheld. The plaintiffs were entitled to relief for the ancestral property. The suit was held maintainable, but the relief for one property was barred by limitation. The plaintiffs were required to pay court fees under Section 37(1) for one property and under Section 37(2) for the other.
Final Decision: The court partly decreed the suit, holding that each party was entitled to an undivided one sixth share in the ancestral property, and dismissed the relief for the other property.
This Civil Suit has been filed, seeking declaration that the impugned Partition Deed, dated 05.01.2006 created by the defendants 1 to 3 herein and registered as Document No.47 of 2006 in the office of the Sub Registrar, Anna Nagar, Chennai and the consequential Sale Deed dated 11.04.2008 executed by the third defendant in favour of the defendants 4 and 5 registered as Document No.1392 of 2008 on the file of the Sub Registrar, Anna Nagar, Chennai in respect of the suit property are sham and nominal and are not binding on the plaintiffs and for consequential relief of partition of the schedule mentioned properties into six equal shares by metes and bounds with reference to value, and allot 1/6th share therein to each of the plaintiffs herein and to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to divide the suit properties, pursuant to the preliminary decree and put the plaintiffs in possession of their respective shares and for costs.
2. The plaintiffs, viz., V.Shanthakumari, G.Logasundari and L.Parameshwari, and the first, second and third defendants viz., G.Sambandan, G.Gajendramurthy, G. Thirunavukkarasu, are sisters and brothers. They are daughters and sons of late M.Govindarajan. Late M.Govindarajan, had acquired several properties particularly (i) house land, bearing Plot No.3605 in 'M' Block, Anna Nagar East, Chennai - 600 102. and (ii) Agricultural land in Survey No.83/1 to an extent of 0.56.50 hectares in Kondapuram Village, Arokonnam Taluk, Vellore District. These two properties are subject matter of the present suit. It had been stated in the plaint that during his life time, he had equal affection towards his children. It had been further stated that their mother, viz., Krishnaveni, died in the year 1989. Mr.Govindarajan, died intestate on 07.08.1991. It had been stated that the plaintiffs used to visit plaint, Item 1' of schedule, viz., Land and Building property at Plot No.3605, M-Block, Arignar Anna Nagar East, Chennai, even after death of their parents and they totally trusted the first, second and third defendants, who were their brothers.
3. The first, second and third defendants stated that they wanted partition of the property and for that purpose, they suggested that the first item of suit property mentioned above were mortgaged to raise funds to pay the due share of the plaintiffs at market rate. Thereafter, plaintiffs were asked to sign in documents and they were made to sign the documents in an hurried manner. The documents were prepared by the first, second and third defendants. The plaintiffs, as stated above, trusted the first, second and third defendants. However, from August 2011, the first, second and third defendants changed their attitude. Thereafter, in the second week of September 2011, it was brought to the knowledge of the plaintiffs that the first, second and third defendants had actually prepared a partition deed in respect of first item of suit property, viz., land and building at Arignar Anna Nagar and got the same registered as Document No.47 of 2006 on 05.01.2006 in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Anna Nagar, Chennai.
4. By the said Deed of Partition, first, second and third defendants alone got the entire property for themselves. The other property, viz., land at Kondapuarm Village, Arakkonam was not partitioned. The plaintiffs did not have any knowledge of the partition deed. Subsequently, the second defendant conveyed his share to his daughter and son-in-law, who are fourth and fifth defendants. Consequently, the plaintiffs through an advocate, sent a notice to the first, second and third defendants on 10.10.2011 and a reply notice was issued by the defendants on 30.11.2011. It has been stated that the documents namely, the partition deed, in which consideration of Rs.5,00,000/- is shown, is totally sham and not binding on the plaintiffs. Consequently, the suit had been filed seeking to set aside the partition deed and also the sale deed and for consequential relief of partition and separ
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
