Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
V.M. VELUMANI, J.
Umarani & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
Dr. A. Senthil Kumar & Ors. - Respondents
S.A.Nos.274 to 276 of 2018 and M.P Nos.7090 to 7092 of 2018
Decided On : 27-07-2018
Joint Family Property - Property Dispute - Settlement Deed, Oral Partition - [JOINT FAMILY PROPERTY] - [Indian Succession Act, 1925 - Section 8, Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - Section 6, Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 6] - The court discussed the validity of settlement deeds, oral partition, and the nature of the disputed properties. Key legal provisions such as Section 8 of the Indian Succession Act, Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, and Section 6 of the Transfer of Property Act were interpreted to determine the ownership and rights over the properties. The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of these provisions in establishing the nature of the properties and the rights of the parties involved.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a property dispute between parties claiming ownership over joint family properties. The appellants asserted that the properties were self-acquired, while the respondents claimed them as joint family properties. The Trial Court ruled in favor of the appellants, but the First Appellate Judge reversed the decision.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the properties in question were joint family properties and upheld the First Appellate Judge's decision. It concluded that the respondents had proved their title and possession, and there was no error in the judgment warranting interference.
Issues: The main issues revolved around the nature of the disputed properties, the validity of settlement deeds, and the existence of oral partition. The court also addressed the specific claims made by the appellants and respondents regarding title and possession of the properties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the finding that the properties were joint family properties, supported by evidence of settlement deeds and oral partition. It also emphasized that the appellants did not dispute the respondents' rights over other properties, leading to the dismissal of the appellants' suit.
Final Decision: All three Second Appeals were dismissed, confirming the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court. No costs were awarded, and connected Miscellaneous Petitions were closed.
1. Second Appeals have been filed against the judgment and decree dated 03.11.2017 made in A.S.Nos.43 to 45 of 2015 on the file of the Additional Sub Court, Tindivanam, reversing the judgment and decree dated 16.10.2015 made in O.S.Nos.237, 247 and 314 of 2008 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Tindivanam.
2. The issues and parties involved in all the Second Appeals are one and the same and hence, they are disposed of by this common judgment.
3. O.S.No.237 of 2008 is filed by one Dr.A.Senthil Kumar and O.S.No.247 of 2008 is filed by Muniammal and others for declaration of title of the suit properties described respectively in the suit schedule and permanent injunction. The appellants filed O.S.No.314 of 2008 against the plaintiffs in O.S.No.247 of 2008 for declaration of title and permanent injunction. The two suits filed by the respondents were dismissed and the suit filed by the appellants was decreed by three separate judgments all dated 16.10.2015. The three First Appeals A.S.Nos.43 to 45 of 2015 were allowed.
4. The case of the appellants in O.S.No.314 of 2008 as plaintiffs and defendants in other two suits viz. O.S.Nos.237 & 247 of 2008 is that Annamallai, Sengalani and Muthumani are sons of Muthupavadai. The said Muthupavadai owned 1 acre 65 cents. The same was given to third parties by way of usufructuary mortgage. Muthumani (father of the first appellant, father-in-law of second appellant and grandfather of appellants 3 & 4), by his own physical exertion earned income and purchased properties in his name. He is the junior member of the family and the properties standing in his name are self-acquired properties. Amirthalingam is son of Annamalai, first son of Muthupavadai. Annamalai died in the year 1934, when Amirthalingam was 8 months old. At the time of marriage of Amirthalingam to one Saroja, at the instance of the parents of said Saroja, Sengalani and Muthumani, sons of Muthupavadai and Amirthalingam, grandson of Muthupavadai, settled the properties in the name of Saroja by settlement deed dated 11.05.1959 with a condition that if Amirthalingam and Saroja do not get any children, the properties must revert back to the settlors. Most of the properties belong to Muthumani. Settlement was not acted upon and properties were not handed over to settlee Saroja.
4(a) Saroja and Amirthalingam did not have any children and the properties must be reverted back to Muthumani. Muthumani is now died. The first appellant and Kalaimani are the only legalheirs and they inherited the suit properties and they are in possession and enjoyment of the same. The settlement deed executed by Saroja on 27.05.1978 in favour of Sengalani, Muthumani and Amirthalingam was secured by Sengalani and Amirthalingam. The said documents are created one and recitals in the said documents are false. There was no oral partition in the year 2004 between Amirthalingam and legalheirs of Muthumani and Sengalani as claimed by the respondents. There cannot be any partition as properties belong exclusively to Muthumani. The appellants are not aware of the sub-division and patta proceedings. The signature of the mother of the first appellant was forged.
5. The case of the respondents is that the suit properties are joint family properties of Muthupavadai and his three sons. Amirthalingam is son of Annamalai. The plaintiffs in O.S.No.247 of 2008 are the legalheirs of Sengalani. Plaintiff in O.S.No.237 of 2008 is the purchaser from Amirthalingam. The suit properties are joint family properties. Out of the income of the joint family properties, certain properties were purchased in the name of Sengalani who was managing the joint family after the death of Muthupavadai and Annamalai. At the time of marriage of Amirthalingam, certain properties were settled on Saroja by settlement deed dated 11.05.1959 by Sengalani, Muthumani and Amirthalingam. Saroja and Amirthalingam did not have any children. Subsequently, Saroja, by deed of settlement dated 2
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
