Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(Mad) 613

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G. JAYACHANDRAN, J.
P. Subramaniam & Another - Appellant
Versus
A. Palanisamy & Others - Respondent
Appeal Suit No. 202 of 2004 & C.M.P. No. 6623 of 2004
Decided On : 02-03-2021

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants :R. Saseetharan, Advocate.
For the Respondents:V.P. Sengottuvel, Advocate.

The burden of proof lies on the plaintiffs to establish joint family properties and their contribution to the property. Additionally, seeking cancellation of settlement deeds under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act is crucial in such cases.

Headnote:
Partition - Civil Procedure Code - Section 96 - O.S.No.37 of 2002 - Summary of Acts and Sections: Civil Procedure Code, Section 96; Specific Relief Act, Section 31 - The court discussed the burden of proof on the plaintiffs to establish joint family properties, the validity of settlement deeds, and the requirement for seeking cancellation of deeds under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act. The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of the plaintiffs' failure to prove contribution to the property and the validity of settlement deeds executed by the first defendant.
Fact of the Case:

The plaintiffs filed a suit for partition claiming joint family property, alleging that the first defendant settled property in favor of other defendants. The trial court concluded that the plaintiffs had no right in the properties as they failed to prove their contribution to the property or its improvement.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the plaintiffs failed to prove their right in the joint family properties and that the settlement deeds executed by the first defendant were valid. The court also noted that the plaintiffs did not seek cancellation of the settlement deeds as required under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act.
Issues: The issues included the validity of settlement deeds, the share of the plaintiffs, and the maintainability of the suit for partition.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the burden of proof was on the plaintiffs to establish joint family properties and their contribution to the property. The court also emphasized the requirement for seeking cancellation of settlement deeds under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act.
Final Decision: The appeal suit was dismissed, and no costs were awarded. The court found that the plaintiffs had no right to claim shares in the self-acquired property of the first defendant.

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The appeal suit was filed by unsuccessful plaintiffs who sought partition of suit properties, alleging they were joint family properties (!) [21001384960001]. - The plaintiffs claimed the first defendant settled property in favor of other defendants, and these settlement deeds were invalid [21001384960004]. - The trial court found that the plaintiffs failed to prove their contribution to the property or its improvement [21001384960009]. - The court noted that the plaintiffs did not seek cancellation of the settlement deeds as required under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act [21001384960009]. - The court held that the burden of proof was on the plaintiffs to establish joint family properties and their contribution to the property [21001384960017]. - The court emphasized the requirement for seeking cancellation of settlement deeds under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act when such deeds may cause serious injury if left outstanding [21001384960016][21001384960023]. - The first defendant presented evidence showing the properties were purchased from his own earnings, and he raised loans for improvements which were repaid from his income [21001384960021][21001384960022]. - The court found that the settlement deeds executed by the first defendant in favor of the second and fourth defendants were valid and acted upon [21001384960009][21001384960022]. - The appeal suit was dismissed as the plaintiffs had no right to claim shares in the self-acquired property of the first defendant [21001384960024][21001384960025].

What is the burden of proof on plaintiffs claiming joint family properties?

What are the requirements for seeking cancellation of settlement deeds under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act?

What are the rights of plaintiffs claiming shares in the self-acquired property of a defendant?

JUDGMENT :

Prayer: Appeal Suit has been filed under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree rendered in O.S.No.37 of 2002 dated 12.03.2003 on the file of the Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court IV), Cimbatore at Tirupur, Coimbatore District.

1. This appeal filed by the unsuccessful plaintiffs, who filed the suit for partition and failed.

2. For clarity, the parties are described as per the designation and ranking found in the plaint.

3. Brief facts of the case is that, plaintiffs 1 and 2 and defendants 2 to 4 are the sons and daughter of the first defendant Palanisamy. Alleging that the suit property is the family property jointly held by the plaintiffs and the defendants in which the first defendant is the Kartha of the family, suit for partition filed by two sons of Palanisamy.

4. Brief Facts:

On 02.05.1963, the first defendant and two others purchased the first item of the suit property. In the partition among the three owners of the property on 27.11.1963, the vacant site of the first item of the property was allotted to the first defendant. The construction over it was made out of joint contribution of the plaintiffs and defendants 2 and 3 along with the first defendant. The vacant site in item No.2 was purchased on 31.05.1979 in the name of the first defendant out of the contribution of the sons of the first defendant and construction was made from out of their contribution. The properties were purchased in the name of the first defendant being the eldest male member of the family. The portion of the second item of the suit property is in occupation of the first plaintiff. The second plaintiff is in occupation of the first item of the suit property. Until one year prior to filing of the suit, the members of the family were very cordial in joint enjoyment of the suit property. Later, mis-understanding arose between the plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 3.

5. Taking advantage, the fourth defendant, who is the daughter of the first defendant has made the first defendant to settle the second item of the suit property in her name on 14.12.1998, describing the property as vacant site, without mentioning the existing construction. When the plaintiffs came to know about that, the first defendant promised to cancel the settlement deed, but instead of cancelling the settlement deed, the first defendant executed the settlement deed in favour of the fourth defendant and in collusion with the second defendant the first defendant executed another settlement deed in favour of the second defendant transferring a portion of the first item property to him on 05.03.1999. As a member of the joint family, the plaintiffs along with defendants 1 to 3 are entitled for equal share in the property. The first defendant has no right to settle unilaterally, according to the whims and fancies, the property in favour of defendants 2 and 3. The settlement deeds executed in favour of the second defendant and the fourth defendant, are not valid and binding on the plaintiffs. Since the first defendant is intended to alienate the remaining property also and all the mediation ended futile, the suit for partition among the plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 3 at the ratio of 1/5th share.

6. The first and the second defendants in their written statements have denied the allegations and the averments made in the plaint. They denied the averments that the properties were purchased in the name of the first defendant as Kartha of the family. The allegation that the construction were put from the contribution of the plaintiffs and defendants 2 and 3 is denied. The property describing as item No.1 in the suit property was purchased by the first defendant from out of his own savings and earnings on 02.05.1963.The first defendant through his firewood shop and Tea stall earned and constructed the buildings in items 1 and 2 of the suit schedule property. They are the self-acquired property of the first defendant. Neither the plaintiffs nor defe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document