Back
2019 Supreme(Mad) 1746
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
C.V. KARTHIKEYAN, J.
Palani @ Boologanathan & Others – Petitioners
Versus
Thananjayan @ Murugesan (died) & Others – Respondents
Rev. A. Nos. 75 & 76 of 2017 against S.A. Nos. 209 & 210 of 1998
Decided On : 03-09-2019
For the Petitioner:S. Subbiah, SC, Elizabeth Rani, Advocate.
For the Respondent:T.P. Manoharan, SC, T. Sathiyamurthi, A.V. Arun, Advocates.
Headnote:
Civil Procedure Code - Section 114 - Order XLVII - permanent injunction seeking protection - undivided share of the suit properties - Challenging that common Judgment - Learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners seeks leave to withdraw these petitions with permission to file Review Petition as the facts has been wrongly mentioned. Permission granted. Consequently, the Special Leave Petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty as prayed for. In case Review Petition is filed within four weeks from today, the same shall be considered on its own merits – Held, Hon’ble Supreme Court had also granted liberty to the parties to file compromise before the High Court. Accordingly, two compromise memos were filed in both the Review Applications. To test the bonafide of the signatories to the compromise memos and also to identify them and also since there was an impression of thumb mark and a signature in Tamil, this Court had requested the Assistant Registrar (OS-I) to be an interpretor of the Court to explain to the parties, the nature of the compromise and to get affirmation as to their terms of the compromise. When the parties appeared before the Assistant Registrar (OS-I), they denied and disowned their signatures. They stated that they were never in Chennai on the date mentioned in the compromise deed. They further stated that they were under the impression that they were signing an amendment application. They further stated that they never intended to give up their rights as citizens of this Country. A final report was given to this Court by the Assistant Registrar (OS-I), High Court, Madras along with a statement of the signatories to the compromise deed, which was counter signed both by the Assistant Registrar and by the interpretor of this Court. I hold that a deliberate attempt had been made to produce a false document before this Court which prevailed the Court to pass a decree on the terms of the Compromise Memos to the detriment of the parties. In order to find out whether as a fact, forgery of signatures had actually happened and whether false documents have been filed with knowledge that they were false and forged, this Court had directed the Deputy Registrar, (AS), Madras High Court, to file a police complaint before the jurisdictional police and the enquiry into the complaint. Consequently, even though compromise memos were filed before this Court, they are not recorded and are not taken on file - learned Senior Counsel further submitted that by virtue of the power conferred under Regulation VII of 1963, Section 2(A) was inserted to the Hindu Succession Act with effect from 01.10.1963, and as per Section 2(A), notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the Hindu Succession Act, nothing contained in that Act shall apply to the Renoncants of the Union Territory of Pondicherry. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the Renoncant is a native resident of former French possessions in India, who has renounced his personal law and adopted the French Civil Law - Applications are allowed
JUDGMENT :
(Prayer in both Review Applications: These Review applications are filed under Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule of CPC., to review the order dated 29.03.2012 passed in S.A.Nos. 209 & 210 of 1998, on the file of this Court by the learned Single Judge of this Court.)
1. The respondents in both the Second Appeals are the Review Applicants. They have filed the Review Applications pursuant to liberty granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.L.P.(C).Nos. 8772 to 8773 of 2013. In the Order dated 25.04.2017 in the said Special Leave to Appeal Petitions, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had ordered as follows:-
“Learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners seeks leave to withdraw these petitions with permission to file Review Petition as the facts has been wrongly mentioned. Permission granted. Consequently, the Special Leave Petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty as prayed for. In case Review Petition is filed within four weeks from today, the same shall be considered on its own merits.
Pending applications including application for recording compromise shall stand disposed of. Liberty is also given to the parties to file compromise before the High Court.” [Emphasis supplied]
2. Subsequently, the Review Applicants herein had filed the present Review Applications.
3. Second Appeal No. 209 of 1998 has been filed by the defendants in O.S.No.1462 of 1986 on the file of the II Additional District Munsif Court, Pondicherry. Second Appeal No. 210 of 1998 had been filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No. 412 of 1987 also on the file of the II Additional District Munsif, Pondicherry.
4. O.S.No. 1462 of 1986 had been filed by the plaintiff Thananjayan @ Murugesan against his father Chakrapani Gounder @ Amavasai and his brothers Plani @ Boologanathan and Govindan and sister Anusuya and legal heirs of another sister Anandammal @ Chandrakanni, seeking to set aside the donation deed dated 06.11.1985 in its entirety or in the alternative to declare that the donation deed is valid only with regard to 1/8th share and that the donation deed is not valid with respect to the remaining 7/8th share and also for permanent injunction restraining the second defendant, Palani @ Boologanathan from alienating the suit properties.
5. O.S.No. 412 of 1987 had been filed by Palani @ Boologanathan against his father Chakrapani Gounder and his brothers Thananjayan @ Murugesan and Govindan and his sister Anusuya and the legal representatives of his another sister Anandammal @ Chandrakani seeking the relief of declaration of title with respect to the suit properties and also for permanent injunction seeking protection from interference with possession and alternatively for a direction to put him in possession of the suit properties and for mense profits.
6. Both the suits came up for consideration before the II Additional District Munsif, Pondicherry. By Common Judgment dated 29.04.1991, O.S.No. 1462 of 1986 was decreed granting a declaration that the donation deed was not valid with respect to 7/8th share of the suit properties. With respect to O.S.No. 412 of 1987, a declaration was granted that the plaintiff Palani @ Boologanathan was entitled to only 1/8th undivided share of the suit properties.
7. Questioning the Common Judgment, Palani @ Boologanathan filed A.S.Nos. 54 & 55 of 1995. His primary contention was that the donation deed executed by his father Chakrapani Gounder @ Amavasai cannot be restricted to just 1/8th share and consequently, he should have been declared as absolute owner of the suit properties. By Common Judgment dated 29.04.1997, the learned Principal District Judge, Pondicherry allowed A.S.No. 54 of 1995 and set aside the Judgment and decree in O.S.No. 1462 of 1986. Similarly A.S.No. 55 of 1995 was also allowed and the Judgment and decree in O.S.No. 412 of 1987 was also set aside and the said suit was decreed as prayed for.
8. Challenging that common Judgment, Thananjayan alias Murugesan, the plaintiff in O.S.No. 1462 of 1986 filed
