IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
V. PARTHIBAN, J.
S. Nirmala & Others - Appellant
Versus
P. Saraswathi & Others - Respondent
C.S. No. 157 of 2021 & O.A. Nos. 242 of 2021 & A. Nos. 1689, 1690, 2436, 2437, 2506, 2507, 2554 & 2555 of 2021
Decided On : 03-03-2022
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. parties bound by family arrangement. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. details of family lineage and earlier litigations. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. immediate provocation for filing the suit. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. kudumba yerpadu's binding nature. (Para 13) |
| 5. defendant's arguments regarding registration requirements. (Para 14 , 15) |
| 6. legal arguments against the suit's maintainability. (Para 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 7. limitations on claims of a family arrangement. (Para 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 8. court's analysis on legitimacy of claims. (Para 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 9. estoppel and principles governing family arrangements. (Para 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 10. court's reliance on previous judgments for ruling. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32) |
| 11. court's final consideration on the suit. (Para 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38) |
| 12. summary and conclusion of the order. (Para 39 , 40 , 41 , 42) |
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: a) For declaration that the plaintiffs and the defendants are bound by “Kudumba Yerpadu” viz., Family Arrangement dated 22.10.1982 executed by Late E.K.Pattabirama Reddiar and others;
b) For permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents, servants or any other persons claiming through them from in any manner interfering with the plaintiffs’ right or entitlement to own, possess and enjoy the properties, more fully described in the schedule IV; more fully described in plaint schedule hereunder;
c) For partition and separate possession of the properties more fully described in Schedule III into 5 equal shares and allot 1/5th share to each of the plaintiff 1 and 4 and to the persons entitled to it in accordance with law;
d) For division of the properties devolved upon the Estate of Late C.Shyamalavalli as legal heir of C.Sathyanarayanan mentioned in Schedule V more fully described in the plaint schedule hereunder to be divided into metes and bounds and allocate 1/3rd share to the plaintiffs jointly as the legal heirs of Late C.Sathyanarayanan in accordance with their entitlement;
e) For a declaration that the properties settled, by Late C.Shyamalavalli by way of Deed of Settlement dated 29.07.2004 and registered as Document No.6568 of 2004 in the Office of the Sub Registrar, Saidapet, more fully described in Schedule V in favour of M/s.Ponni and Banu Raj, is illegal, invalid and non-est and consequently, the same shall not confer any legal rights in favour of M/s.Ponni and Banu Raj nor shall bind the plaintiffs in relationship to those properties mentioned therein;
(f) for a direction directing the defendants to render true and proper accounts of the income and expenditure including the sale proceeds received by the defendants on account of the sales effected and consideration received by them for the properties of Late E.K.Pattabirama Reddiar on a day to be fixed by this Court.
O.A.No.242 of 2021: Application filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of O.S. read with Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 and r/w Section 94(e) of the C.P.C. to grant interim injunction restraining the respondents/ defendants their men, servants, agents or anyone claiming under them from in any manner interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the properties, pending suit.
A.No.1689 of 2021: Application filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of O.S.Rules r/w Order XL Rule 1 CPC to appoint the 1st plaintiff S.Nirmala as Party Receiver in respect of the properties, pending suit.
A.No.1690 of 2021: Application filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of O.S.Rules r/w Order II Rule 3 of CPC to grant permission to the plaintiffs to unite and combine the various cause of action in respect of various claims arising out of KUDUMBAYERPADU’ and Testamentary dispossession in one comprehensive suit thereby combining the cause of action, combining the claims n respect of those properties and properties owned and possessed by the plaintiffs as against the defendants in this Court.
A.No.2436 of 2021: Application filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of O.S.Rules r/w Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) and Section 151 of CPC, 1908 to reject the plaint in
Dahiben vs Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali in Civil Appeal No.9519 of 2019 - 2020 (7) SCC 366
The court emphasized that a plaint cannot be rejected based on potential defenses, reaffirming the principle that the merits of the case require evaluation at trial, not at the initial stage of the a....
Courts must reject a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 if it discloses no cause of action or is barred by limitation. This power must be used to terminate vexatious litigation where 'clever drafting' at....
The court emphasized that questions of limitation and cause of action are mixed issues of law and fact best resolved at trial, not at the application stage.
The court articulated that a suit cannot be dismissed at the threshold for alleged insufficiency of court fees if it discloses a valid cause of action, emphasizing the importance of evaluating the me....
A suit cannot be dismissed at an early stage under Order 7 Rule 11 based solely on time limitation when material factual disputes exist.
Court's jurisdiction in rejecting a plaint is limited to the averments within it, and cannot be influenced by extrinsic documents or biases regarding legitimacy of claims.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.