Back
2022 Supreme(Mad) 1843
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
A.A. NAKKIRAN, J.
K. Devaraj & Another - Appellant
Versus
J. Amul - Respondent
AS.No. 365 of 2015 (Through Video Conferencing)
Decided On : 14-06-2022
For the Appellants:T.K. Ramkumar, R.S. Varadarajan, Advocates. For the Respondent:S. Nagarajan, Advocate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the doctrine of res judicata in a property dispute, emphasizing the importance of legal heirs' entitlement, property transactions, and final decrees.
Headnote:
res judicata - Property Dispute - [Order 41 Rule 1, Section 96 of CPC] - [Ex.A3, Ex.A4, Ex.A5, Ex.B2, Ex.B3, Ex.B4, Ex.B5] - The court discussed the property dispute and the doctrine of res judicata. It highlighted the legal heirs' entitlement to the property, the partition deed, sale transactions, and the final decree obtained by Kamalammal, which influenced the court's decision.
Fact of the Case:
The suit was filed for declaration that the Plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit property and for permanent injunction and for costs. The Plaintiff claimed ownership based on a series of property transactions, while the Defendants argued that the suit was hit by the doctrine of res judicata.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the property originally belonged to Valliammal and her daughters were entitled to equal shares. It concluded that the Plaintiff became the sole and absolute owner of the property through a series of transactions, while the Defendants' claim based on a sale deed was not valid.
Issues: 1. Plaintiff's entitlement for declaration as the owner of the suit property. 2. Plaintiff's entitlement for permanent injunction. 3. Plaintiff's entitlement for permanent injunction restraining the Defendants from dealing with the property. 4. Other relief.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the evidence of property transactions, partition deeds, and final decrees to establish the Plaintiff's ownership and reject the Defendants' claim based on the sale deed.
Final Decision: The Appeal Suit was allowed, and no costs were awarded.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: This Appeal Suit has been filed, under Order 41 Rule 1 read with Section 96 of CPC, against the judgement and decree, dated 09.01.2015, made in OS.No.7473 of 2010, by the XVI Additional Judge, Chennai.)
1. This Appeal Suit has been filed, by the Defendants, against the judgement and decree, dated 09.01.2015, made in OS.No.7473 of 2010, by the XVI Additional Judge, Chennai.
2. The suit was filed for declaration that the Plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit property and for permanent injunction and for costs.
3. The case of the Plaintiff is that the suit property originally belonged to Valliammal and she had two daughters, viz, Alamelu Ammal and Chinnakannnu Ammal. On the death of Valliammal, who died intestate, her daughters were entitled to equal shares in the property. Alamelu Ammal died leaving behind her son Harikrishnan, who died leaving behind his wife Gangammal, two sons viz., Duraikannu and Parthasarathy and two daughters, viz., Rukkuammal and Sarasammal. The legal heirs of Harikrishnan entered into a registered partition deed, dated 02.04.1987. As per the partition deed, the suit property belonged to the legal heirs of Harikrishnan and the sons were allotted 546 square feet each together with a 3 feet common pathway. The daughters, Rukkuammal and Sarasammal had executed a registered release deed on 13.03.1996, with respect to their share in favour of Duraikannu and Parthasarathy. On 07.07.1997 Parthasarathy and his wife had sold his share of 546 square feet on the Western side to Dharani. The said Dharani had sold 226 square feet along with a pathway to one D.Nagajyothi on 18.08.1997. The remaining 260 square feet along with a pathway was sold on the same date to the Plaintiff. On 24.09.1997, D.Nagajyothi had sold 226 square feet along with the pathway to the Plaintiff. On 24.09.1997, the Plaintiff had purchased the pathway measuring 42 square feet from V.Selvarani. Thus, the Plaintiff is the absolute owner of the property in Rs.No.2853/3,4,5. On 15.12.2000, A.S.Mani father of Dharani had executed a sale deed with respect to the suit property in favour of the 1st Defendant. Dharani had sold the property in favour of one Nagajyothi who in turn had sold the property in favour of the Plaintiff. On 18.08.1997, on the death of Dharani in 1991, his father A.S.Mani, claiming to be the sole legal heir of the deceased Dharani had executed a sale deed in favour of the 1st Defendant on 15.12.2000. Based on the sale deed executed by A.S.Mani, the 1st Defendant claims right and attempted to interfere with the suit property. In such circumstances, the suit had been filed, seeking the reliefs, as stated above.
4. The case of the Defendants, in a nutshell, as set out in the written statement, is that the suit is hit by the doctrine of res judicata. The suit property, originally belonged to Venkatasala Mudaliar and his wife Valliammal. On 17.4.1922, they executed a Will in favour of their daughter Alamelu with respect to 1200 square feet in Rs.No.2853 and with respect to other properties, in favour of Chinnakannu Ammal. Alamelu Ammal died, leaving behind her son Harikrishnan and daughter Kuppammal. On the death of Harikrishnan, his wife Gangammal, his two sons Duraikannu and Parthasarathy partitioned the property, whereby Parthasarathy was allotted 546 square feet. Gangammal and her two daughters Rukkuammal and Saraswathy Ammal had executed a release deed in favour of Duraikannu and Parthasarathy on 13.03.1996. Since the daughter of Kuppammal viz., Kamalammal was not added as a party in the partition deed, she had filed a suit in OS.No.3962 of 1991 for partition of 1200 square feet in Rs.No.2853. Pending the said suit, Parthasarathy had sold the share allotted to him under the partition deed to one Dharani on 07.07.1997. But, on 01.10.1997 a preliminary decree was passed in the said suit and a final decree was also passed on 1.10.1997, allotting 547 square feet to Kamalammal. On 24.03.1999, Dharani died as a bachelo
