SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Mad) 536

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G. JAYACHANDRAN, J.
Somasundaram - Appellant
Versus
Parameswariammal (Deceased), Represented by her Legal Representatives & Others - Respondent
A.S. No. 876 of 2019 & C.M.P. Nos. 26727 of 2019 & 13994 of 2020
Decided On : 17-02-2021

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :T. Thilageswaran for M/s. Waraon & Sai Rams, Advocates.
For the Respondents:Perumbulavil Radhakrishnan, Advocate

The main legal point established in the judgment is the fraudulent nature of the sale deeds, the applicability of the limitation period, and the credibility of the patta and the defendants' claims regarding the title.

Headnote:

Fraudulent Sale Deeds - Property Dispute - S.A.No.61 of 1960 - C.M.P.No.8281 of 1962 - Ex.A.5, Ex.A.7, Ex.A.17, Ex.A.18 - Limitation Act - Title Dispute - Patta - XVIII Additional City Civil Court, Chennai

Fact of the Case:

The suit pertains to a property dispute involving fraudulent sale deeds, S.A.No.61 of 1960, and C.M.P.No.8281 of 1962. The plaintiffs sought to declare two sale deeds null and void, claiming that the property was illegally conveyed and registered by the defendants. The suit was filed within the limitation period, and the plaintiffs were not in possession of the property.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the sale deeds were fraudulent and void, and the plaintiffs had established their title to the property through various documents and evidence. The court also dismissed the defendants' claims regarding the patta and the limitation period, ruling in favor of the plaintiffs.

Issues: The main issues included the validity of the sale deeds, the applicability of the limitation period, and the authenticity of the patta. The court also considered the possession of the property by the plaintiffs and the defendants' claims regarding the title.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the sale deeds were fraudulent and void, and the suit was filed within the limitation period. The court also found that the patta and the defendants' claims regarding the title were not credible, ruling in favor of the plaintiffs.

Final Decision: The court confirmed the judgment and decree in favor of the plaintiffs, dismissing the appeal suit with costs and closing the connected miscellaneous petitions.

JUDGMENT :

Prayer: First Appeal is filed under Section 96 & Order 41 Rule 1 C.P.C., against the judgment and decree dated 30.10.2019 made in O.S.No.8721 of 2010 passed by the Learned XVIII Additional City Civil Judge, Chennai.

1. The Appeal is filed by the 7th defendant/Somasundram against the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.8721 of 2010 (formerly C.S.No.845 of 2009 on the file of High Court, Madras, later renumbered and transferred to City Civil Court, Chennai).

Pleadings in nutshell:-

2. The suit laid by the plaintiffs on the premise that, the property morefully described under “A” schedule in the plaint is about 17 grounds and 400 sq.ft comprised in S.Nos.64 and 66, T.S.No.2, Block-22, Uroor Village, Chennai Corporation Division 137, Adyar. It is part of 23 acres and 70 cents of land held by M.A.Sreerangammal W/o.Srinivasa Iyengar. The said M.A.Sreerangammal got the property through a settlement deed from her husband on 09.12.1935. Some time before 1956, one Subbadrammal W/o.Krishna Naicker, was in possession of the property as a tenant putting up a construction in a portion of the land. She was permitted to sublet portion of the land. The landlady M.A.Sreerangammal ejectment suit in O.S.No.12 of 1954, for recovery of possession and other reliefs. Response to this ejectment suit, Subbadrammal filed O.S.No.252 of 1956 on the file of the City Civil Court, Chennai, against the landlady M.A.Sreerangammal and three others seeking protection under City Tenant Protection Act 1955, in respect of the lands comprising in Survey Nos.64,66,71,72 and 73 situated in Uroor Village.

3. Against the dismissal of her suit, the said Subbadrammal filed Appeal against the judgment in O.S.No.252 of 1956. The Appellate Court remanded the matter to the Lower Court for fresh Trial. After de nova trial, the suit came to be allowed. On Appeal in A.S.No.216 of 1958, the Trial Court decree got reversed. Hence, Subbadrammal preferred Second Appeal before the High Court, Madras. In the said appeal S.A.No.61 of 1960, decree was passed as per the compromise memo entered between the parties.

4. As per the compromise decree, M.A.Sreerangammal agreed to convey by way of absolute sale deed either to Subbadrammal or her nominee, the ‘BEFG’ marked portion of land measuring 2,61,511 sq.ft = 108.96 grounds for consideration of Rs.87,168/- and the ‘GHJC’ marked portion of land measuring 1,96,016sq.ft = 81.67 grounds for Rs.1,30,672/-. These two pieces of properties were shown as items (a) and (b) in the compromise decree and identified in the sketch annexed to the decree. Thereafter, Subbadrammal nominated one Balasubramaniam to purchase the (a) item property on payment of Rs.87,168/- and item (b) property for Rs.1,30,672/- from Sreerangammal either in lumpsum or in instalments with interest as provided in the compromise decree. On appointment of nominee by Subbadrammal, out of 108.96 grounds marked as ‘BEFG’ portion, 59 grounds marked EFWVUTSQ sold to Balasubramaniam by Srirangammal on 07.05.1963. The remaining land measuring 49 grounds sold to one M/s.Sakthivel Investments on the same day.

5. The said Balasubramaniam, in the 59 grounds purchased from Sreerangammal as nominee of Subbadrammal along with M/s.Sakthivel Investments promoted a layout in the name ‘Parameswari Nagar.’ Sold major portion of the land retaining 17 grounds and 400sq.ft. The said Balasubramaniam died intestate on 11.07.1977 leaving behind him is wife Parameswariammal (first plaintiff), 5 sons (plaintiffs 2 to 6) and a daughter (7th plaintiff).

6. The plaintiffs when came to know, 6 grounds and 1446 sq.ft of land in S.Nos.64 and 66, T.S.No.2 of Uroor Village, which is part of the 17 grounds 400 sq.ft retained by Balasubramaniam conveyed by M.A.Narasimhan illegally and got registered a document in favour of M/s.D.C Foundation Pvt Ltd., on 10.02.2005 and the said M/s.D.C.Foundation Pvt Ltd, had inturn sold it to one Somasundaram on 09.08.2006. The said M.A.Narasimhan had registered the sale deed in

                        Click Here to Read the rest of this document
                        1
                        2
                        3
                        4
                        5
                        6
                        7
                        8
                        9
                        10
                        11
                        SupremeToday Portrait Ad
                        supreme today icon
                        logo-black

                        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

                        qr

                        Scan Me!

                        India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

                        For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

                        whatsapp-icon Back to top