Back
2019 Supreme(Mad) 2329
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
P.T. Asha, J.
Muthulakshmi - Appellant
Versus
Thangaraj (died) & Others - Respondent
S.A.(MD) Nos. 104 & 487 of 2015 & M.P.(MD) No. 2 of 2015
Decided On : 27-11-2019
Raguvaran Gopalan, M. Subash Babu, Advocates.
The court emphasized the importance of valid and reliable evidence in establishing property ownership and highlighted the significance of suspicious circumstances and discrepancies in assessing the validity of legal documents.
Headnote:
Code of Civil Procedure - Partition Suit - Ex.A3 partition deed - Ex.B6 Will - Ex.B8 Will - Section 100
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for partition of 'A' and 'B' schedule properties, claiming her share. The defendants contested, claiming ownership through a Will and a partition deed. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the appellate court partially allowed it. Subsequent second appeals were filed challenging the decisions.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish her claim to the 'B' schedule property, as the evidence supported the defendants' ownership through a partition deed and purchase. Regarding the 'A' schedule property, the court upheld the appellate court's decision, considering suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will and discrepancies in oral evidence.
Issues: Validity of partition deed and Will, ownership of 'A' and 'B' schedule properties, and correctness of lower courts' decisions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the evidence of partition deed and purchase for the 'B' schedule property, and found suspicious circumstances and discrepancies in the execution of the Will for the 'A' schedule property.
Final Decision: The Second Appeals were dismissed, confirming the lower court's judgment and decree.
JUDGMENT :
Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to set aside the judgment and decree dated 07.08.2013 made in A.S.No.253 of 2011 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Trichy, partly confirming the judgment and decree dated 21.03.2011 made in O.S.No.426 of 2000 of the II Additional Subordinate Judge, Trichy.
Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to set aside the judgment and decree dated 07.08.2013 made in A.S.No.253 of 2011 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Trichy, partly confirming the judgment and decree dated 21.03.2011 made in O.S.No.426 of 2000 of the II Additional Subordinate Judge, Trichy.
1. S.A.(MD) No.104 of 2015 is filed by the plaintiff in the suit O.S.No.426 of 2000 on the file of the learned II Additional Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirappalli, challenging the judgment and decree in A.S.No.253 of 2011 on the file of the learned II Additional District Judge, Tiruchirappalli insofar as the decree of the trial Court is confirmed with reference to the 'B' schedule property.
2. S.A.(MD) No.487 of 2015 is filed by the defendants in the above suit, challenging the judgment and decree in A.S.No.253 of 2011 insofar as the decree of the trial Court is set aside with reference to the 'A' schedule property.
3. Since both the appeals emanate from a single suit, a common judgment is being pronounced and the parties are herein below referred to in the same litigative status as in the trial Court.
PLAITNIFF'S CASE:
4. The plaintiff had filed a suit O.S.No.426 of 2000 on the file of the II Additional Subordinate Judge, Trichirappalli for a partition of her 1/2 share in the 'A' schedule property and a 1/3rd share in the 'B' schedule property apart from seeking rendition of accounts in respect of the properties by relegating the same to a separate proceeding under Order XX Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
5. The 'A' schedule property belonged to the plaintiff's mother, Nachammal and the 'B' schedule property is the ancestral property of her father, Ramasamy. Given below is a genealogy showing the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendants.
“IMAGE”
6. It is the case of the plaintiff that the 'A' schedule property belonged to the plaintiff's mother's family and her mother had two brothers, Palanisamy and Arunachalam. On 06.05.1968, the plaintiff's mother had executed a partition release deed in favour of her mother and brothers in respect of their family properties and the 'A' schedule property fell to the share of the plaintiff's mother, Nachammal. Nachammal was in open, continuous and peaceful uninterrupted possession till her life time and had therefore, prescribed title to the same as well. The said Nachammal died intestate on 30.05.1996 leaving behind the plaintiff and the 1st defendant as her legal heirs since her husband, Ramasamy, had predeceased her. The plaintiff would contend that the 'B' schedule property is the joint family property of the plaintiff's parents and the 1st defendant, her brother. On the death of the plaintiff's father, Ramasamy, his 1/3 share devolved on the plaintiff, 1st defendant and her mother. On the death of the plaintiff's mother, Nachammal, her share devolved on the plaintiff and the 1st defendant. As a result, the plaintiff became entitled to a 1/3rd share in the 'B' schedule property and the 1st defendant became entitled to a 2/3rd share.
7. The plaintiff would contend that though she had been demanding partition of the suit property since misunderstanding arose between her and the 1st defendant, the 1st defendant has failed to comply with the request, but on the other hand was trying to create bogus and sham documents in favour of his relatives on his wife side so as to defeat the rights of the plaintiff. Therefore, left with no other alternative, the plaintiff had come forward with the suit in question.
DEFENDANTS' CASE:
8. A written statement was filed by the deceased 1st defendant contending th
