Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
R. SUBRAMANIAN, J.
D. Vijayalakshmi - Appellant
Versus
V. Hariselvan and Ors. - Respondents
S.A. No. 297 of 2014 and M.P. No. 1 of 2014
Decided On : 08-01-2020
Registration Act - Section 28 - Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - Section 14 (1) and (2) - Civil Procedure Code - Section 11 – Claim of compensation - Seeking declaration of title - Recovery of possession - Originally the suit was laid by the plaintiff for a declaration that the first defendant had only a life estate and plaintiff and defendants were first defendant the life estate holder, according to the plaintiff, died pending suit forcing an amendment to plaint seeking declaration of the title of the plaintiff and defendants 3 to 5 and for recovery of possession from the second defendant, who claimed to be a purchaser from the first defendant - Suit property belonged to one Patti who had married the first defendant in - Though they were blessed with a son, it appears that he died some time - Thereafter, Patti married another as his second wife. She died without any issues. Sometime in precisely Patti married one as his third wife plaintiff and defendants children of Patti through the third wife - Soon after his marriage with Patti with an intent to provide for the maintenance of his first wife executed a Settlement Deed settling the suit property in of his first wife providing a life estate for her and on her death the property was to revert back to Patti or his heirs – Held, If we are to the facts on hand based on the principles of law, the sale Deed was registered on that date as law stood, such registration was legally permissible vendor, under first defendant had purchased a certain property at Kerala within the jurisdictional limits of the Registering Authority at under same day - Though has been cross-examined on the registration aspect, it has not been suggested to him that such property is not at all in existence or that the vendor under did not have title to the property to convey to the first defendant - Therefore twin requirements, viz. property being fictitious and the vendor or the mortgagor not having title to the property, have not been established in the case on hand acts of Registration being official acts performed by the Registrar in discharge of his duties, they are entitled to be presumed true in view of Section 60(2) of Registration Act. I am therefore of the considered opinion that the Registration of the document at Kerala would not amount to fraud on registration as it at best can be called tax planning to avoid payment of a huge amount as stamp duty - As already pointed out tax planning as opposed to tax evasion is perfectly legal and justified - In view of the above, the second additional question of law framed is also answered in of appellant - Limited estate vested in first defendant under would enlarge into an absolute estate and the sale by in of appellant/second defendant under would convey title to appellant/second defendant - Appeal is allowed
Key Points: - The suit property was settled on the first defendant in 1949, providing her with a life estate [21001369510002]. - The first defendant claimed her limited estate became an absolute estate upon the commencement of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 [21001369510008]. - The court found that the settlement deed was executed in recognition of a pre-existing right of maintenance [21001369510031][21001369510032]. - The principle of res judicata does not apply because the prior litigation concluded before the enactment of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and the issue of estate enlargement was not previously adjudicated [21001369510033][21001369510034]. - Registration of a document outside the state prior to the 1997 amendment of the Registration Act is not per se invalid if the transaction is bona fide and the property included is in existence [21001369510055][21001369510057]. - Including a small portion of property to facilitate registration in a specific jurisdiction for the purpose of tax planning is not considered a fraud on registration [21001369510057][21001369510058]. - The limited estate held by the first defendant enlarged into an absolute estate, validating the sale of the property to the second defendant [21001369510058]. - The Second Appeal was allowed, and the suit for declaration and recovery of possession was dismissed [21001369510059].
JUDGMENT :
R. Subramanian, J.
1. The second defendant in OS No. 1308 of 1998, who suffered a decree for declaration of title of the plaintiff and defendants 3 to 5 and for recovery of possession as against the second defendant has come up with this Second Appeal.
2. Originally the suit was laid by the plaintiff for a declaration that the first defendant had only a life estate and the plaintiff and defendants 3 to 5 were the reversioners. The first defendant the life estate holder, according to the plaintiff, died pending suit forcing an amendment to the plaint seeking declaration of the title of the plaintiff and defendants 3 to 5 and for recovery of possession from the second defendant, who claimed to be a purchaser from the first defendant.
3. The facts that led to the filing of the suit are as follows:
4. On 26.06.1950 Rajammal (first wife) issued a notice to Patti Chettiar claiming that he had deceived her. According to her, Patti Chettiar had promised to settle the property absolutely in her favour under Settlement Deed dated 09.09.1949, but however she had been granted only a life estate. On the above claim, Rajammal required Patti Chettiar to execute a rectification deed conferring an absolute estate on her. The said notice was replied by Patti Chettiar on 09.08.1950, wherein, he claimed that the Settlement Deed was executed with the intent of providing maintenance to her. He further claimed that certain amount of cash was also handed over to her on the date of the execution of the settlement Deed. It was his further claim that a sum of Rs. 4,000/- was kept in deposit and the interest was directed to be paid to her, for her maintenance. Not satisfied with the reply notice, the said Rajammal, viz., the first defendant in the present suit filed a suit in OS No. 52 of 1951 seeking a declaration that she is entitled to the property set out in Schedule 'A' absolutely, direct the first defendant to execute necessary document rectifying the deed of Settlement dated 09.09.1949 and for other reliefs.
5. The said suit was resisted by Patti Chettiar, contending that he intended only to create life estate to favour of his first wife/plaintiff in OS No. 52 of 1951, the said suit was dismissed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore, on 17.08.1955 as regards the relief of declaration was' concerned' granting a decree for maintenance and held that the plaintiff (first defendant herein), would be entitled to enjoy the rent from the house described in the plaint Schedule 'A' property (subject matter of the Settlement Deed dated 09.09.1949) and receive the rents. It was also held that she would be entitled to collect the interest from the amount of Rs. 4,000/- that was kept in deposit with the second defendant and a further sum of Rs. 1,000/- from the first defendant, which should be taken by her absolutely. The plaintiff in OS No. 52 of 1951 accepted the said decree and did not choose to challenge the same. However, Patti Chettiar, the first defendant therein, filed an Appeal in AS No. 133 of 1956 before this Court. The said Appeal came to be dismissed on 01.07.1959, confirm
SupremeToday
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
