Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P. KALAIYARASAN, J.
G. Sugunambal & Others - Plaintiffs
Versus
Dhanalakshmi Ammal & Others - Defendants
C.S. No. 441 of 2005
Decided On : 23-04-2018
Partition - Property Dispute - Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 - [PARTITION] - [PROPERTY DISPUTE] - [Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988, Section 4] - The court held that the properties purchased in the name of minors did not revert back to the estate of the father on the demise of the minor, but devolved on the mother as the Class-I heir. The suit was found to be barred under Section 4 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988. The fourth defendant was entitled to 2/3rd share in the first item of the suit property.
Fact of the Case:
The civil suit was filed seeking a preliminary decree for partition of the suit property and a declaration of title over the property. The plaintiffs claimed that the properties belonged to the estate of their deceased father and that the first defendant had no right over the properties. The defendants contested the claims and asserted their ownership and possession of the properties.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the properties purchased in the name of minors did not revert back to the estate of the father on the demise of the minor, but devolved on the mother as the Class-I heir. The suit was found to be barred under Section 4 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988. The fourth defendant was entitled to 2/3rd share in the first item of the suit property. The plaintiffs' claims for declaratory relief and injunction were denied.
Issues: The issues revolved around the marital status of the parties, the legal status of the parties in relation to the deceased, the succession and inheritance of the suit schedule properties, the applicability of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988, and the entitlement to shares in the suit property.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the properties purchased in the name of minors did not revert back to the estate of the father on the demise of the minor, but devolved on the mother as the Class-I heir. The suit was found to be barred under Section 4 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988. The fourth defendant was entitled to 2/3rd share in the first item of the suit property.
Final Decision: The civil suit was dismissed, and the counter claim made by the fourth defendant was allowed. A preliminary decree was passed in favor of the fourth defendant, granting them 2/3rd share in the first item of the suit property.
1. This Civil Suit has been filed seeking (a) to pass a preliminary decree for partition by dividing the Item No.1 of the suit property by metes and bounds and allocate 2/3 shares to the fourth plaintiff or in the event of property indivisible, directing the fourth defendant to sell his share to the fourth plaintiff for the value fixed by the Court; (b) for a declaration that the fourth plaintiff has title over the 2/3rd undivided share in respect of Item No.1 of the property and injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession of the same; (c) for a declaration that the settlement deed, dated 24.03.1989 executed by the first defendant in favour of second and third defendants with respect to Item No.2 of the suit property as sham and nominal and to declare that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the property and (d) for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating or dealing with the suit Item Nos.1 and 2 except in accordance with law.
2. The plaint averments are as follows:
(i) The first plaintiff is the wife of late N.Gurupatha Mudaliar, who was dealing with Indian made liquor sales and earned substantial amounts. N.Gurupatha Mudaliar purchased few properties in the name of children born through legal wedded wife, the fourth plaintiff, besides in the name of the children born to his kept mistress, viz., the first defendant as well as Vijayalakshmi. The first plaintiff, G.Sugunambal was only the legally wedded wife of late Gurupatha Mudaliar. Out of the wedlock the first plaintiff gave birth to two sons and a daughter who are plaintiffs 2 to 4. Gurupatha Mudaliar was having illegitimate intimacy with Dhanalakshmi, the first defendant and G.Vijayalakshmi, the mother of the fourth defendant. The first defendant cannot claim the status of a wife since her husband Rajamanickam was alive when he was the kept mistress of N.Gurupatha Mudaliar.
(ii) Dhanalakshmi Ammal, the first defendant through Gurupatha Mudaliar begot three children by name Govindammal, Nandakumar and Loganathan. Loganathan died on 05.11.1986 issueless and unmarried and Nandakumar died on 22.08.1988 leaving behind wife and widow Smt.N.Manjula and son by name Parthiban and daughter by name Lakshmipriya. The daughter of Dhanalakshmi Ammal, viz., Smt.Govindammal gave birth to two children, namely A.P.Om Prakash Narayan (D2) and Logabiram (D3) through her husband Pachaiappan.
(iii) G.Vijayalakshmi, the kept mistress of Gurupatha Mudaliar has two sons by name G.Sathyakeerthi, Saravanamurthi and one daughter Smt.Santhannayaki.
(iv) The deceased Gurupatha Mudaliar during his life time acquired Item No.1 of the plaint schedule property in the name of Loganathan, G.Deivakadacham (D4) and G.Sathyakeerthi (P4) by a sale deed, dated 03.12.1980, when the said Loganathan, D4 and P4 were aged 14, 5 and 9 years respectively. He also constructed Rajambal Kalyana Mandapam in the property and enjoyed the income derived therefrom till his demise. Similarly, Gurupatha Mudaliar also acquired Item No.2 of the plaint schedule property under three sale deeds, dated 23.04.1986 in the name of Loganathan.
(v) Loganathan had passed away on 05.11.1986 and Nandakumar had passed away on 22.08.1988 and Gurupatha Mudaliar died on 23.08.1991.
(vi) After the demise of Gurupatha Mudaliar, the fourth plaintiff has been exercising control over the Kalyana Mandapam and has been enjoying the income along with the fourth defendant. Both Item Nos. 1 and 2 of the suit property belong to the estate of Gurupatha Mudaliar and the plaintiffs being legal heirs have succeeded to the estate and have become absolute owners of the property. But however the fourth plaintiff and fourth defendant were running the Kalyana Mandapam and were enjoying the income from the Kalyana Mandapam. As Item Nos.1 and 2 of the plaint schedule properties belong to the estate of late N.Gurupatha Mudaliar, the first defendant has no semblance of right, title or interest in t
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
