Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J.
K.M. Ramanathan & Others – Appellant
Versus
Palaniammal & Others – Respondent
S.A. No. 512 of 2017 & CRP (NPD)No. 746 of 2018 & CMP Nos. 13126 & 6486 of 2020
Decided On : 20-04-2021
Civil Procedure Code - Sections 100 and 115 - Order 41 - Rule 27 – Civil Suit – Second Appeal - Originally suit schedule properties belonged to one Vaiyapuri Naicker, who died intestate - Whether judgment of First Appellate Court is vitiated since it is contrary to Direction of Hon’ble Supreme Court - Whether First Appellate Court is right in confirming judgment and Final Decree of trial Court without considering application of appellants to adduce subsequent evidence of documents such as judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal, compromise Decree in L.P.A. obtained fraudulently behind the back of the appellants herein, etc.
Finding of the court: Trial Court has observed that there is no necessity for Court to accept suggestions made by Advocate Commissioner as it is, it has not applied its mind and has accepted suggestions made by Advocate Commissioner as it is and allotted shares accordingly - A perusal of judgment in A.S. would show that appellant’s plea that they are bonafide purchasers has been negatived and subsequently in LPA, transposition applications also dismissed as they are not relevant parties to agitate and it has refused to take and consider plea of the bonafide purchasers who have purchased property based on release deed which was held to be void. There is no challenge to the said finding. Court below held that finding of this Court in A.S. has become final, thereby, it has come to conclusion that appellants are not the bonafide purchasers and consequently they are not entitled for any relief and their interest need not be protected - Portion marked as “C” coloured in ‘Green’ in Ex.C2, Advocate Commissioner Reports would be allotted to 1st defendant, V.Rangaswami instead of the portion marked as “A” coloured in “Red” in Plan as allotted by Advocate Commissioner and subsequently confirmed by Trial Court as well as First Appellate Court.
Result: Second Appeal is allowed
JUDGMENT :
(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree dated 30.11.2016 in A.S.No.239 of 2003 on the file of I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, confirming the judgment and decree dated 22.03.2000 in I.A.No.187 of 1999 in O.S.No.766 of 1981 on the file of Principal Subordinate Court, Coimbatore.
Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code against the fair and decreetal order dated 30.11.2016 made in I.A.No.395 of 2016 in A.S.No.239 of 2003 on the file of I Additional District Judge, Coimbatore.)
1. Challenging the judgment and decree dated 30.11.2016 in A.S.No.239 of 2003 passed by the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, confirming the judgment and decree dated 22.03.2000 in I.A.No.187 of 1999 in O.S.No.766 of 1981 passed by the Principal Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore, the defendants 4 to 23 /bonafide purchasers have filed the present Second Appeal.
2. Civil Revision Petition filed against the fair and decreetal order dated 30.11.2016 made in I.A.No.395 of 2016 in A.S.No.239 of 2003 on the file of I Additional District Judge, Coimbatore.
3. The brief facts of the case is as follows:-
Originally the suit schedule properties belonged to one Vaiyapuri Naicker, who died intestate. The wife of the said VaiyapuriNaicker is Singariammal. The said Vaiyapuri Naicker and Singariammal had one Son and three daughters namely a. V. Rangaswami, b. Ranganayaki, c. Palaniammal and d. Lakshmiammal respectively. The mother and children are eligible for 1/5”share each in the suit properties.
4. After the demise of the said Vaiyapuri Naicker, his wife namely Singariammal and daughters namely Palaniammal and Lakshmiammal jointly settled their due shares in the suit properties to and in favour of son namely V. Rangaswami, through a Registered Release Deed dated 16.02.1972 in Document No 243 of 1972 on the file of SRO, Coimbatore. In lieu of the above said Release Deed dated 16.02.1972, the said V. Rangaswami paid a sum of Rs. 1000/- to each and settled 6 cents of land each to and in favour of the said Palaniammal and Lakshmiammal through a Registered Settlement Deeds dated 21.02.1972 in Document Nos.283 and 284 of 1972. Further, after the execution of the above said Release Deeds dated 21.02.1972, on the request of the said Lakshmiammal, the said V. Rangaswami settled another 6 cents of land from his share that he got under Partition Deed dated 12.07.1972.
5. Under these circumstances, the Appellants namely K.M.Ramanathan, N.Gopalaswamy. R.Rangaswamy and S.Sambandamurthy jointly purchased 49.75 cents in S. Nos.411/1 and 412 from the said V. Rangaswami for valuable consideration through a Registered Sale Deed dated 24.10.1979 in Document No 2048 of 1979 on the file of SRO, Coimbatore Likewise, the Appellants namely P. Durairaj. G. Arjunan, P. Rajendran and R. Elangovan jointly purchased 54.5 cents in S. Nos.411/1 and 412 from the said V Rangaswami for valuable consideration through a Registered Sale Deed dated 02.11.1979 in Document No.3083 of 1979 on the file of SRO, Coimbatore. Likewise, the Appellants namely Mohammed Haneefa, N. Kandasamy. P. Subramanian, M. Ayyasamy, P. Muthuvel and Govindaraj jointly purchased 36 cents in S. No.411/1 from the said V. Rangaswami for valuable consideration through a Registered sale Deed dated 14.12.1979 in Document No.3732 of 1979 on the file of SRO, Coimbatore. Thereafter they partitioned their respective properties under three Partition Deeds in Document Nos. 2079 of 1980, dated 09.06. 1980, 2153 of 1980, dated 16.06 1980 and 2394 of 1981, dated 22.05.1981 respectively. From the date of purchase, the Appellants have been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the above properties for the past 42 years.
6. While this was so, subsequently the 1 Respondent herein namely Mrs.Palaniammal filed a suit in O.S. No.766 of 1981 for partition before the Principal Subordinate Court, Coimbatore. The Ap
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
