Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Mad) 2470

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R. SUBRAMANIAN, R. KALAIMATHI, JJ.
V. Selvarani & Others – Appellants
Versus
Varadharaj & Others – Respondents
A.S. Nos. 481, 482, 516 & 517 of 2013
Decided On : 10-08-2023

Advocates appeared:
For the Parties:R. Krishnan in C.R. Prasannan, R2, R9 & R13, R. Krishnan, R1, R. Subramanian, Advocates. R2 to R5 & R8 to R10 R6 & R7, Person not found & R8 died.

The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act and the burden of proof required to establish joint family properties. The judgment also emphasizes the need to dispel suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of a Will and the importance of evidence to put the Will beyond suspicion.

Headnote:
Benami Transaction - Partition - Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act - Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act - [BENAMI TRANSACTION] - Partition - [Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act] - [Section 3(2), Section 4] - The court discussed the presumption under Section 3(2) of the Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act and its application to the purchase of properties in the name of the wife. The court also considered the limited retrospectivity of the Act and the burden of proof required to dislodge the presumption. The judgment highlighted the legal principles established in various judgments to determine joint family properties and the burden of proof in establishing self-acquired properties. The court's decision was influenced by the evidence presented to rebut the presumption and the lack of proof of joint family properties.
Fact of the Case:

The case involved two cross suits for partition, separate possession, and rendition of accounts in respect of immovable and movable properties. The plaintiff claimed a share in the joint family properties based on the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005. The defendants contested the claim, asserting self-acquisition and validity of a Will executed by the deceased. The Trial Court granted a preliminary decree for partition and made determinations on the genuineness of the Will and the character of the properties.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the properties purchased in the name of the wife were self-acquired by the deceased and not intended for the benefit of the wife. The court also concluded that the Will executed by the deceased was not valid and binding, and the plaintiff was entitled to a share in certain properties. The court upheld the Trial Court's decree in respect of specific properties and dismissed one of the suits while partially allowing the other.
Issues: The issues included the entitlement to shares in specific properties, the validity of the Will, and the character of certain properties as joint family or self-acquired. The court also considered the burden of proof in establishing joint family properties and the application of the Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the evidence presented to rebut the presumption under the Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act and the lack of proof of joint family properties. The court also considered the suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the Will and the differences in signatures, leading to the conclusion that the Will was not valid and binding. The court made determinations on the character of specific properties based on the evidence and legal principles established in previous judgments.
Final Decision: The appeals in A.S.Nos.481 & 482 of 2013 were dismissed, while the appeals in A.S.Nos.516 & 517 of 2013 were allowed in part. The suit in O.S.No.841 of 2007 was dismissed, and the suit in O.S.No.307 of 2004 was decreed with specific determinations on the plaintiff's entitlement to shares in certain properties.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: First Appeal filed under Section 96 of C.P.C., r/w. Order 41 Rule 1 of C.P.C., against the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.307 of 2004 dated 10.01.2013 on the file of the IV-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore.

A.S. No. 516 of 2013: First Appeal filed under Section 96 of C.P.C., against the judgment and decree dated 10.01.2013 in O.S.No.307 of 2004 on the file of the IVAdditional District and Sessions Court, Coimbatore.

A.S. No. 517 of 2013:First Appeal filed under Section 96 of C.P.C., against the judgment and decree dated 10.01.2013 in O.S.No.841 of 2007 on the file of the IVAdditional District and Sessions Court, Coimbatore.)

R. SUBRAMANIAN, J.

1. The above four appeals arise out of two cross suits in O.S.No.307 of 2004 and O.S.No.841 of 2007 on the file of the IV-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore. 2.The suit in O.S.No.307 of 2004 was laid for partition, seperate possession and rendition of accounts in respect of six items of immovable properties described in Schedule 1 and eleven items of movable properties described as Schedule

2. The plaintiff, who is the son of T.S.Ramasamy Chettiar and Sowdammal, who died on 21.01.1968 and 12.12.2001 respectively claimed 9/24th share in the suit properties on the premise that all the suit properties belonged to the joint family, of which, T.S.Ramasamy Chettiar was Karta. Claiming that T.S.Ramasamy Chettiar died leaving behind two sons and five daughters, the plaintiff / R.Balakrishnan would seek a share as a Coparcener and a share out of the share of Ramasamy Chettiar as Clause-1 heir. The other son and daughters of Ramasamy Chettiar, who are six in number and certain alienees as well as the wife of the 2nd defendant were the original defendants. One of the daughers of Ramasamy Chettiar, R.Sarojini died and her husband, son and daughter were impleaded as defendants 11 to 13. Basis on which, the plaintiff sought for partition is as follows:-

2.1. Ramasamy Chettiar and his children constituted a joint Hindu family. Ramasamy Chettiar was doing cloth business at Coimbatore and earned huge income. He, as a head of the family purchased various immovable and movable properties in the name of his wife Sowdammal, his eldest son, R.Varadharaj / 2nd defendant as well as his daugher-in-law / V.Selvarani, wife of the 2nd defendant. It was claimed that after the death of Ramasamy Chettiar on 21.01.1968, his wife Sowdammal, plaintiff and defendants 1 to 6 succeeded to his estate and have continued to be joint in status as joint family members. It is also claimed that all the properties were enjoyed jointly. Sowdammal died on 12.12.2001 and even after her death, the family continued to be joint without any disruption in their status. It is therefore, claimed by the plaintiff that the properties being joint family properties and by virtue of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 6, being the children of Ramasamy Chettiar would each be entitled to 1/7th share in the suit schedule properties. Though the original claim was to 9/24th share, the same was amended claiming 1/7th share.

3. The defendants 1 and 3 to 6 namely, daughters of Ramasamy Chettiar supported the case of the plaintiff. The 2nd defendant, who is the other son of Ramasamy Chettiar filed a separate written statement, contending that the suit Item No.4 is his self-acquisition and suit Item No.6 is the self-acquisition of his wife / 9th defendant. It was the further contention of the 2nd defendant that Item Nos. 1 to 3 were purchased by Sowdammal under sale deed dated 27.10.1948 out of the income earned by doing Dairy business. It is also contended that on 05.06.1995, while in sound disposing state of mind, Sowdammal had executed a Will, giving life estate to the 9th defendant and absolute interest to the daugher of the 2nd defendant and 9th defendant, who figures as 10th defendant in the suit. An additional written statement was also file