IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G. JAYACHANDRAN, J.
Parimala & Others – Appellants
Versus
Sulochana, Rep. by her Power Agent Nagarajan, Namakkal - Respondent
A.S. No. 649 of 2018 & C.M.P. Nos. 17569 of 2018 & 804 of 2021
Decided on : 11-03-2021
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Suit property - Share - Suit for partition – Decreed - Plaintiff had purchased suit property from one Haripriya vide Ex.A.4. - Plaintiff's vendor got property by way of a settlement deed Ex.A.3 executed by her mother - Appellant is that have no power to settle her undivided share in coparcener property to her daughter - Therefore, said settlement deed as well as consequence sale deed will not bind other coparcener namely the appellant. Further, case of appellant is that Ex.A.3 settlement deed and Ex.A.4 sale deed had been fraudulently created at instigation of one then M.L.A of Constituency - At his instance Ex.A.3 settlement deed was fabricated and thereafter, a bogus sale deed created Whether the suit property is a coparcener property or not, if it is a coparceners property - Whether undivided share in the property disposed by way of a settlement Ex.A.3 is valid?
Finding of the court: Appellants submitted that, they were forced to sell property, pending suit, to met out family expenses and said transactions were done pursuant to permission granted by this Court - There is no doubt, said transactions were subsequent to suit and pursuant to permission granted by this Court - In any event, right of plaintiff to question purchaser of undivided ½ share is very limited - Appellants has failed to prove that the property sold was interest in undivided coparcener property - Plaintiff has also failed to prove that after entering into an agreement for sale, when they had right to purchase property their ready and willing to purchase property at any time - Therefore, this Court is of view that, though dispossession of defendants from suit portion appears to be by force, as far as settlement deed (Ex.A.3) bin favour of her daughter and subsequent sale under Ex.A.4 are valid document - Plaintiff to seek for western portion and it is now proved through other evidence and also admitted by defendants that they have sold portion of eastern portion, which were in their possession and enjoyment - In such circumstances, any interference in judgment of trial Court will lead to inconvenience to third parties as well -Therefore, this Court holds trial Court judgment and decree based on evidence and proven facts which needs no interference
Result: Appeal Suit is dismissed
JUDGMENT :
(Prayer: First Appeal is filed under Section 96 of C.P.C., against the judgment and decree dated 28.11.2017 made in O.S.No.173 of 2010 on the file of the Learned Principal District Court, Namakkal.)
1. The Appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court in the suit for partition and separate possession. The aggrieved defendant is the appellant before this Court.
2. Suit for partition filed by the purchaser of the undivided ½ share of the suit property. Same was defendant by the co-sharer on the ground of pre-existing right to purchase. The Trial Court rejected the said defence.
3. The Trial Court judgment and decree is assailed on the ground that the Court below erred in relying upon a void settlement deed dated 02.02.2010 marked as Ex.A.3 and the subsequent sale deed dated 30.09.2010 marked as Ex.A.4, which is per se not maintainable in the eye of law. The contention of the appellant is that a coparcener cannot donate or settle her undivided share in the suit property without the consent of the other coparceners. Therefore, the settlement deed through which the property has been alienated in favour of the plaintiff is non est in the eye of law because the gift or devise by a coparcener in Mitakshara family of her undivided interest is wholly invalid.
4. In this case, the plaintiff had purchased the suit property from one Haripriya vide Ex.A.4. The plaintiff's vendor Haripriya got the property by way of a settlement deed Ex.A.3 executed by her mother Vasanthamani.
5. The contention of the Learned Counsel for the appellant is that Vasanthamani have no power to settle her undivided share in the coparcener property to her daughter Haripriya. Therefore, the said settlement deed as well as the consequence sale deed will not bind the other coparcener namely the appellant. Further, the case of the appellant is that Ex.A.3 settlement deed and Ex.A.4 sale deed had been fraudulently created at the instigation of one K.P.Ramasamy, then M.L.A of Rasipuram Constituency. At his instance Ex.A.3 settlement deed was fabricated and thereafter, a bogus sale deed created in the name of his wife Sulochana, who is the plaintiff. By force, she took possession of the property and same established by the defendants through Ex.B.6 to Ex.B.12.
6. It is further contended that, proper issues were not framed and the Trial Court had discussed irrelevant issues, which are not germane for deciding the suit. The validity of settlement deed (Ex.A.3) dated 02.02.2010 not been properly considered by the Trial Court. The suit should have been valued as per Section 37(1) of Tamil Nadu Court Fees Act, 1955, had being erroneously valued under Section 37(2) of the Act, which was not considered by the Trial Court.
7. The Learned Counsel for the appellant relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Thamma Venkata Subbamma -vs- Thamma Rattamma and others reported in (1987) 3 SCC 294 and Karsanbhai Dahyabhai Parmar -vs- Dahiben D/o Dahyabhai Dabhaibhai and others reported in AIR 2017 SC 3857 submitted that, gift deed in respect of undivided share without the consent of the other coparceners is invalid. However, the trial Court has totally failed to take note of the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and erroneously decreed the suit.
8. Per contra, the Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent herein defending the judgment and decree of the trial Court submitted that, on 11.02.1966, the suit property was given to the share of Vasanthamani when the partition was effected among the legal heirs of Patcha Konar. In the said partition, the suit property was allotted to Papayeeammal and her three children. Viz two sons namely Balasubramanian and Jeganathan and one daughter Vasanthamani. Papayeeammal died interstate on 14.11.2005 and her son Balasubramanian died on 07.06.2009 leaving behind his wife Parimala and daughter Elyanandhini and Satya. Papayeeammal another son Jeganathan died as bachelor on 17.11.2009. The suit property, thu
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.