Back
2022 Supreme(Mad) 1002
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
D.Bharatha Chakravarthy, J.
Anu Sharma & Ors. - Appellants
Vs.
Sujeethkumar Sharma (Deceased) - Respondent
A.S.Nos.581 and 582 of 2013 & M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2013 and M.P.No.1 of 2014 in A.S.No.581 of 2013 & M.P.No.1 of 2013 and M.P.No.2 of 2014 in A.S.No.582 of 2013
Decided On : 20-12-2022
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Mr.R.Rajavelavan Adv.
For the Respondents: M/s. P.Mani, Mr.T.Dhanasekaran, Adv.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the devolution of property under personal law and the determination of property shares and business rights based on the relationships and actions of the parties.
Headnote:
Judgment - Appeal Suits - O.S.No.35 of 2012 and O.S.No.239 of 2012 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the devolution of property under the self-acquired property of Mahavir Prasath Sharma, the entitlement of legal heirs to shares in the property, and the right to continue the business 'Delhi Sweets and Reena Bakery'. The key legal provisions discussed include the devolution of property under personal law, rights of legal heirs, and entitlement to business ownership and injunction relief. These provisions influenced the court's decision on property shares and the right to continue the business.
Fact of the Case:
The suits arose from a common judgment and decree regarding a property partition and permanent injunction. The property belonged to Mahavir Prasath Sharma, and the suits involved disputes between his two wives and their children over property shares and business rights. The Trial Court held that the property would devolve upon the wives and children, and granted permanent injunction to one party.
Finding of the Court:
The Trial Court found that the property would devolve upon the wives and children, and granted permanent injunction to one party. The issues included the entitlement of shares in the property, rights to continue the business, and other reliefs. The Court analyzed the devolution of property and business rights, and concluded that the property shares and business rights were determined based on the relationships and actions of the parties.
Issues: The issues included the entitlement of shares in the property, rights to continue the business, and other reliefs.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the property would devolve upon the wives and children, and granted permanent injunction to one party. The property shares and business rights were determined based on the relationships and actions of the parties.
Final Decision: The Appeal Suit in A.S.No.581 of 2013 was dismissed, confirming the judgment and decree in O.S.No.35 of 2012. The Appeal Suit in A.S.No.582 of 2013 was allowed, setting aside the judgment and decree in O.S.No.239 of 2012 and passing a decree for permanent injunction in favor of the plaintiffs.
JUDGMENT :
A. The Appeal Suits :
These Appeal Suits arise out of a common judgment and decree, dated 21.11.2013 of the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Cuddalore in O.S.No.35 of 2012 and O.S.No.239 of 2012, in and by which, the suit in O.S.No.239 of 2012, for permanent injunction was dismissed and O.S.No.35 of 2012, for partition of the suit properties was decreed by granting a preliminary decree.
B. Brief Facts :
2. The brief facts that led to the filing of the present appeals are that the suit -A- schedule property in O.S.No.35 of 2012 originally belonged to one Mahavir Prasath Sharma, he having purchased the same under three sale deeds, dated 25.10.1990, 03.01.1992 and 03.11.1994. The said Mahavir Prasath Sharma first married one Vimaleshkumari and thereafter, he again married Vimaleshkumari's sister, Anu Sharma. Through Vimaleshkumari, he had one son namely, Sujeethkumar Sharma and through Anu Sharma, he had two sons namely, Sureshkumar Sharma and Surajkumar Sharma and two daughters namely, Ritukumari and Reenakumari.
3. The said Mahavir Prasath Sharma was running a sweet stall and bakery under the name and style “Delhi Sweets and Reena Bakery" in the schedule 'A' mentioned property. The elder brother of Mahavir Prasath Sharma namely, Om Prakash Sharma was also jointly looking after the sweet shop. Suddenly, the said Mahavir Prasath Sharma died on 26.02.1999 intestate. After the death of the said Mahavir Prasath Sharma, his first wife Vimaleshkumari and son Sujeethkumar Sharma joined the brother of the said Mahavir Prasath Sharma namely, Om Prakash Sharma and filed a suit in O.S.No.456 of 2010 for bare injunction against Anu Sharma, the second wife and her son Sureshkumar Sharma from in any manner interfering with the sweet stall business in any manner.
4. It is the case of Sureshkumar Sharma that from the age of 15 years, he had looked after the business by assisting his paternal uncle Om Prakash Sharma and after attaining majority, he took over the business. The first wife/Vimaleshkumari or her son never participated in the business and they had moved to Pondicherry from Cuddalore for the purpose of Sujeethkumar Sharma's education and it is only the said Sureshkumar Sharma who was running the sweet stall business. Under the said circumstances, since difference of opinion arose between both the sides, firstly, a suit was originally filed by the above mentioned second wife, Anu Sharma and her son Sureshkumar Sharma in O.S.No.135 of 2011 on the file of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore for permanent injunction restraining the defendants namely, the first wife, Vimaleshkumari and her son Sujeethkumar Sharma from in any manner interfering with the plaintiffs carrying on business in the suit property.
5. The said Vimaleshkumari and her son Sujeethkumar Sharma along with Surajkumar Sharma who is the other son of the second wife, together filed O.S.No.35 of 2012 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Cuddalore against the second wife Anu Sharma, her son Sureshkumar Sharma, her daughters, Ritukumari and Reenakumari, claiming partition of the schedule 'A' property and to allot 3/6th share to the plaintiffs and to appoint a Commissioner to divide the suit properties in terms of preliminary decree. In view thereof, the earlier suit filed on the file of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore in O.S.No.135 of 2011 was transferred for trial along with the later partition suit in O.S.No.35 of 2012 on the file of the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Cuddalore and were tried and disposed off jointly by a common judgment.
C. The Issues & The Trial:
6. Upon completion of the pleadings, the following issues were framed by the Trial Court in the respective suits :-
In O.S.No.35 of 2012 :
1. Whether the suit for partition is maintainable?
2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for 3/6th share in "A" Schedule property?
3. Whether the suit properties are joint family properties of t
