Back
2020 Supreme(Mad) 390
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
M. Muthuvel - Appellant
Versus
Mangayarkarasi(deceased) & Others - Respondent
S.A. No. 1447 of 2005 & CMP No. 18904 of 2005
Decided On : 02-06-2020
For the Appellant:S.Y. Masood, Advocate. For the Respondents: R2 & R3, C.T. Mohan, R1, Died, R6, Notice served, R4 & R5, Not ready in notice.
Headnote:
Benami Transaction - Property Dispute - Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 - Section 4(2) - The court discussed the applicability of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 and held that the suit was filed long before the Act came into force, making the Act inapplicable to the case. The court also emphasized that it is not permissible for the High Court to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the lower courts unless the findings are found to be perverse or without any reason.
Fact of the Case:
The suit was filed for partition and injunction by the plaintiffs, who claimed entitlement to a share in the suit property. The defendants contested the claim, asserting full right over the property and denying the plaintiffs' title. The trial court partly decreed the suit, which was subsequently remanded and allowed in part, leading to the second appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the suit was maintainable as it was filed before the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 came into force, making the Act inapplicable to the case. The court also upheld the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the lower courts, emphasizing that no substantial questions of law were involved in the second appeal.
Issues: The issues included the applicability of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988, the maintainability of the suit, and the entitlement of the plaintiffs to a share in the suit property.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the fact that the suit was filed before the Act came into force, rendering the Act inapplicable to the case. Additionally, the court emphasized that it is not permissible for the High Court to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the lower courts unless the findings are found to be perverse or without any reason.
Final Decision: The second appeal was dismissed, and the court upheld the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the lower courts, emphasizing that no substantial questions of law were involved in the second appeal.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: This Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree dated 11.08.2003, in A.S.No.211 of 1999 on the file of the VII Additional City Civil Judge, Chennai confirming the judgment and decree dated 17.09.1998 in O.S.No.9369 of 1989 on the file of the I Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai.)
1. This second appeal is directed as against the judgment and decree dated 11.08.2003, in A.S.No.211 of 1999 on the file of the VII Additional City Civil Judge, Chennai confirming the judgment and decree dated 17.09.1998 in O.S.No.9369 of 1989 on the file of the I Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rankings in the trial Court.
3. The case of the plaintiffs in brief is as follows:-
3.1 The suit is filed for partition and injunction. The first plaintiff is the mother of the deceased P.Viswanathan and the second and third plaintiffs are his sisters. The first plaintiff got married with one Panchacharam in the year 1945 and he was in employment at M/s.Gillandors Abruthnot & Co and drawing a very good salary. He retired from service in the year 1975. They had birth to one son and two daughters. Her son died in the year 1986 leaving behind his mother, namely the first plaintiff, two sisters and his wife along with three minor children, namely defendants 2 to 4. The first plaintiff is the mother of the said Viswanathan and the second and third plaintiffs are her daughters. The deceased Panchacharam left only the house property and immovables namely 30 sovereigns of gold. All the properties were maintained by his son Viswanathan. The first plaintiff’s husband received terminal benefits of Rs.9444/- He purchased the suit property in the name of the first defendant’s husband, namely their son as benami for the benefit of the plaintiffs. In fact, their son had not paid a single paise to purchase the suit property in the name of their son P.Viswanathan. It is only a benami transaction. The suit property was purchased from one Majan Bi Ammal on 29.09.1977. All the transactions were executed by the said Panchacharam and purchased the suit property in the name of Viswanathan. In the year 1981, the said Panchacharam died leaving behind the plaintiffs and their only son, Viswanathan, namely the husband of the first defendant, who died in the year 1986.
3.2 Further stated that the plaintiffs filed suit in OS.No.2735 of 1986 on the file of the I Assistant City Civil Court, Madras for declaration declaring that she is entitled for benefit payable by the Ganishee. In fact, all the death benefits of the deceased Viswanathan were received by the first defendant and the suit property is also enjoyed by the defendants 1 to 4, which they are not fully entitled to. Under these circumstances, the first defendant was driven out from the suit property and when the plaintiffs were leaving the suit property, they left jewels weighing 20 sovereigns in the suit house. While being so, the defendants 1 to 4 have arranged to sell the suit property in favour of the fifth defendant. Though, the fifth defendant had knowledge about the suit filed by the plaintiffs in O.S.No.2735 of 1986, he purchased the suit property for very low price of Rs.75,000/- by registered sale deed dated 30.09.1992. The defendants 1 to 4 also knew very well about their title over the property and even then they sold out the suit property without consent of the plaintiffs in favour of the fifth defendant. Therefore, they are also liable to pay means profit. Hence, the suit.
4. The first defendant filed written statement and stated that except the relationship between the plaintiffs and the defendants, all the averments made in the plaint are false and frivolous. The suit property belongs to the husband of the first defendant and purchased the same by out of his own funds. It is completely false to state that only the first defendant’s father Panchacharam purchased the suit prop
