Pitchaiammal vs Pappathi - 2022 Supreme(Mad) 3761

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(Mad) 3761

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
S.SOUNTHAR, J.
Pitchaiammal – Appellant
Versus
Pappathi – Respondent
S.A(MD)No.871 of 2011
Decided on : 16-12-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Ms.R.Pranavi for Mr.K.S.Durai Pandian
For the Respondent: Mr.K.Sekar

Headnote:
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Section 100 – Hindu Succession Act – Section 14(1) – Judgment and decree – Appellants filed a suit for declaration that appellants and second respondent are entitled to suit property after life time of first respondent and for a consequential injunction restraining respondents from interfering with possession of appellants – Held, Courts below by rightly appreciating recitals found in Ex.A.1 held that appellants are not entitled any right over suit property – Said finding requires no interference by this Court – Though learned counsel for appellants submitted that second respondent herself as D.W.1 admitted rights of appellants over suit property in her evidence, a perusal of evidence of D.W.1 circulated by learned counsel for appellants, makes it clear that there is no such admission. D.W.1 only says that after death of her mother, first respondent, her heirs were entitled to suit property – Even assuming that there is an admission, an erroneous admission will never confer title on appellants – In such circumstances, Court do not find any question of law muchless substantial question of law in this appeal and consequently, second Appeal is dismissed by confirming concurrent judgments and decrees passed by Courts below – Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

PRAYER : Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to set aside the judgment and decree dated 25.11.2003 in A.S.No.252 of 2001 on the file of the Sub Court, Arupukottai, confirming the judgment and decree dated 27.02.2001, passed in O.S.No.329 of 1998, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Aruppukottai.

The plaintiffs in the suit are the appellants. The appellants filed a suit for declaration that the appellants and the second respondent are entitled to suit property after the life time of the first respondent and for a consequential injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with the possession of the appellants. The said suit was dismissed by the trial Court and the appeal filed by the appellants/plaintiffs was also dismissed and hence, the appellants are before this Court.

2. According to the appellants/plaintiffs, the suit property originally belongs to Ramanatha Thevar. The appellants claimed themselves as children of Ramanatha Thevar through his second wife Irulayee. The first respondent is the first wife of the said Ramanatha Thevar. The second respondent is the daughter of Ramanatha Thevar through his first wife, namely, first respondent. The third respondent is the purchaser of the suit property from the respondents 1 and 2.

According to the plaint averments, the said Ramanatha Thevar, at the time of his second marriage with the mother of the appellants, in order to make provision for maintenance of his first wife, namely, first respondent, executed a settlement deed dated 05.03.1963 in respect of the suit property giving life estate to the first respondent with vested remainder to the heirs of Ramanatha Thevar and first respondent. It is also averred in the plaint that as per the terms of said settlement deed, the life estate holder, namely, first respondent is not entitled to make any alienation. It is also stated in the plaint that in respect of his other properties, Ramanatha Thevar executed a Will in favour of his second wife, Irulayee, namely, the mother of the appellants. It is a specific claim of the appellants that after the death of the first respondent, as per the terms of settlement deed, the heirs of Ramanatha Thevar and the first respondent were entitled to the suit property. Therefore, it is the case of the appellants that the appellants, namely, the children of Ramanatha Thevar through his second wife and the second respondent, namely, the daughter of Ramanatha Thevar through his first wife are entitled to suit property after the life estate holder, namely, the first respondent.

3. The respondents 1 and 2 filed a written statement and resisted the suit on the grounds that as per the terms of settlement deed executed by Ramanatha Thevar, only the heirs of Ramanatha Thevar and the first respondent were entitled to absolute estate. It was specifically averred that the heirs of Ramanatha Thevar through his second wife, namely, Irulayee were not entitled to any vested remainder under the terms of settlement. It was also specifically averred by the respondents 1 and 2 that after the death of Ramanatha Thevar, the first respondent enjoyed the suit property, namely, the subject matter of the settlement deed, dated 05.03.1963, as its absolute owner. It was also averred that the respondents 1 and 2 jointly executed a sale deed in favour of the third respondent on 19.08.1998. On these grounds, the respondents 1 and 2 sought for dismissal of the suit.

4. Before the trial Court, the first appellant was examined as P.W.1 and six exhibits were marked on behalf of the appellants/plaintiffs as Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.6. The second respondent was examined as D.W.1 and sixteen documents were marked through her as Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.16.

5. The trial Court, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence especially on consideration of terms of settlement deed, dated 05.03.1963, which was marked as Ex.A.1, came to the conclusion that on death of the first respondent, the suit property

Click Here to Read the rest of this document