Back
MADRAS HIGH COURT
SINGLE BENCH
G.K. Ilanthiraiyan, J.
S.M. SEKAR (DIED) — Appellant
Vs.
P. ARUNACHALAM — Respondent
Second Appeal No. 1735 of 2002, 1736 of 2002
Decided on : 02-06-2020
Partition Deed - Property Dispute - 29.03.1988 - [Partition Deed, Section 114-G of the Evidence Act] - The court discussed the rights and obligations of the parties as per the partition deed dated 29.03.1988, which allowed both parties to use the ridges situated in the other party's land to reach their respective shares. The court upheld the findings of the lower courts, emphasizing the importance of the partition deed and the rights it conferred upon the parties.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a property dispute between two sets of siblings over the use of ridges in each other's land as pathways to reach their respective shares, as per a partition deed dated 29.03.1988. The trial court dismissed one suit and allowed the other, leading to appeals.
Finding of the Court:
The court upheld the findings of the lower courts, emphasizing the importance of the partition deed and the rights it conferred upon the parties.
Issues: The issues revolved around the interpretation and application of the partition deed, the existence of permanent ridges in the defendants' land, and the entitlement of the plaintiffs to the relief sought.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the rights and obligations outlined in the partition deed, the lack of evidence regarding permanent ridges in the defendants' land, and the binding nature of the partition deed.
Final Decision: Both second appeals were dismissed, confirming the judgment and decree passed by the lower courts.
JUDGMENT/ORDER
G K Ilanthiraiyan, J. - S.A.No.1735 of 2002:-
1. This second appeal is directed as against the judgment and decree dated 02.04.2001 made in A.S.No.1 of 2001 on the file of the Principal District Court, Erode, confirming the judgment and decree dated 31.10.2000 made in O.S.No.277 of 1998 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Erode.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking in the trial Court.
3. The case of the plaintiff in O.S.No.277 of 1998 in brief is as follows:-
3.1.The suit is filed for permanent injunction. The plaintiffs' father and the defendants' father are brothers, who were born to one Ponnuswami Gounder. Among themselves, they partitioned joint family property by partition deed dated 29.03.1988. Accordingly, they are in possession and enjoyment of their respective shares. While being so, the plaintiff's father viz., Muthuswami died on 23.02.1995 and after his demise the plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of the property which was allotted to their father. They also mutated all the revenue recorded in their name and they also regularly paid kist to the property.
3.2.In the partition deed dated 29.03.1988, B schedule property was allotted to the father of the plaintiffs and C schedule property was allotted to the defendants' father. The allotment of shares which is categorically annexed in the plaint and accordingly, there is a common pathway to reach their respective shares. All the brothers are cultivating the same to the crops such as paddy, turmeric and ground nut. The entire lands are irrigated from the common well as well as the Lower Bhavani Project canal water. While being so, the defendants are attempted to encroach the common pathway and common canal and as such there was a misunderstanding between them. Therefore, the plaintiffs filed suit for permanent injunction, restraining the defendants from trespass into the suit property and also from creating any new path way across the land.
4. Resisting the same, the defendants filed written statement stating that the plaintiffs' father and the defendants' father are brothers and by registered partition deed dated 29.03.1988, their joint family properties were divided. All the parties were given right to use the existing ridges situated in other party's land. It is also categorically mentioned in the partition deed dated 29.03.1988. The plaintiffs' father was allotted the B schedule property and the defendants' father was allotted C schedule property. Accordingly, the defendants are using the ridges in the plaintiffs' land so as to reach their property. Therefore, the plaintiffs cannot object the defendants from using the ridges as pathway to reach their property. The defendants are exercising the said right by way of grant also as such, the suit is liable to be dismissed. Further they stated that they also filed suit for declaration, mandatory injunction and permanent injunction as against the plaintiffs in respect of the very same dispute in O.S.No.311 of 1998 and prayed for dismissal of the suit.
S.A.No.1736 of 2002 :-
5. This second appeal is directed as against the judgment and decree dated 02.04.2001 made in A.S.No.2 of 2001 on the file of the Principal District Court, Erode, confirming the judgment and decree dated 31.10.2000 made in O.S.No.311 of 1998 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Erode.
6. The case of the plaintiff in O.S.No.311 of 1998 in brief is as follows :-
6.1.The suit is filed for declaration, mandatory injunction and permanent injunction. The defendants in O.S.No. 277 of 1998 are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.311 of 1998. The plaintiffs' father and the defendants' father are brothers and by registered partition deed dated 29.03.1988, their joint family properties were divided. All the parties were given right to use the existing ridges situated in other party's land. It is also categorically mentioned in the partition deed dated 29.03.1988. The plaintiffs' f
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
