Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. SOUNTHAR, J.
V. Chandragantha - Appellant
Versus
R. Kanagaraj and Ors. - Respondents
S.A.No.25 of 2017
Decided On : 03-10-2023
SECOND APPEAL - PROPERTY DISPUTE - CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, SECTION 100; TAMIL NADU COURT FEES AND SUIT VALUATION ACT, SECTION 37(2); LIMITATION ACT, ARTICLE 60, ARTICLE 109 - The court discussed the validity of a sale deed executed for family necessity and the implications of ancestral property rights. It emphasized that mere recitals in a sale deed are insufficient without supporting evidence of family necessity. The court also clarified the applicable limitation period for challenging a father's alienation of ancestral property, determining that the correct period is twelve years under Article 109 of the Limitation Act, rather than three years under Article 60.
Fact of the Case:
The respondents filed a suit to declare a sale deed executed by their father null and void, seeking partition and injunction against the appellant, who purchased the property. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the appellate court reversed this decision, leading to the appellant's second appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The appellate court found that the sale deed lacked evidence of family necessity and that the respondents had a rightful claim to the ancestral property. The court concluded that the suit was filed within the appropriate limitation period.
Issues: 1. Whether the sale was for family necessity and binding on the respondents. 2. Whether the court fee was correctly assessed under the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act. 3. Whether the suit was barred by limitation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that without a specific plea of family necessity, the appellant could not rely on the sale deed's recitals. It also clarified that the limitation period for challenging a father's alienation of ancestral property is twelve years, not three, as the respondents were not made parties to the sale deed.
Final Decision: The second appeal was dismissed, affirming the appellate court's decision in favor of the respondents.
JUDGMENT :
(S. Sounthar, J.)
(Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, to set aside the Judgment and decree dated 25.02.2016 made in A.S.No.82 of 2014 on the file of III Additional District and Sessions Judge at Coimbatore reversing the Judgment and decree dated 26.06.2014 made in O.S.No.575 of 2012 on the file of III Additional Subordinate Judge at Coimbatore.)
The 2nd defendant in the suit is the appellant. The respondents 1 and 2 filed a suit seeking declaration that the Sale Deed dated 06.07.2001 executed by the 3rd respondent/1st defendant is null and void and also permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The respondents 1 and 2/plaintiffs also sought for partition of 2/3rd share in the suit property. The respondents 1 and 2 also sought for permanent injunction restraining the 2nd defendant from alienating or encumbering the suit property.
2. The Trial Court dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the respondents 1 and 2 filed an appeal in A.S.No.82 of 2014 before the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore. The First Appellate Court reversed the findings of the Trial Court and allowed the appeal and granted decree for partition, declaration and injunction against the alienation as prayed for. The prayer in respect of the absolute injunction was dismissed. Aggrieved by the judgement and decree passed by the First Appellate Court, the 2nd defendant in the suit has come up by way of this second appeal.
3. According to the respondents 1 and 2/plaintiffs, the suit property is ancestral property and hence, they are entitled to 2/3 share in the suit property. Originally the suit property was allotted to the share of their father R.Rangasamy namely the 3rd respondent. Originally there was a partition in the family between the father of the respondents 1 and 2 namely R.Rangasamy, his brother Duraisamy and grandfather Ramanna Gounder on 14.03.1991 and the suit property was allotted to the share of 3rd respondent under C-Schedule to the said partition document. It is the case of the respondents 1 and 2 that they have been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property along with 3rd respondent without any hindrance from third parties. On 16.07.2012, the respondents 1 and 2 came to know of the Sale Deed executed by the 3rd respondent in favour of the appellant and therefore, they were constrained to file the suit seeking above said relief.
4. The 3rd respondent remained exparte. The appellant/2nd defendant filed a written statement and admitted that the suit property was allotted to the share of 3rd respondent-R.Rangasamy in the family partition dated 14.03.1991. It was averred by the appellant that the suit property was purchased on 06.07.2001 from 3rd respondent and she has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property from that date onwards. It was specifically pleaded by the appellant that the respondents 1 and 2 had knowledge about the sale by the 3rd respondent and therefore, they were not entitled to maintain the suit. It was also pleaded that the suit property was separate property of the 3rd respondent and his father-Ramanna Gounder. The appellant further stated in her written statement that the plaintiffs/respondents 1 and 2 failed to challenge the sale within three years from the date of attaining majority. Therefore, the suit was barred by limitation.
5. Before the Trial Court, the 1st respondent was examined as PW.1 and 6 documents were marked on the side of the respondents 1 and 2/plaintiffs as Ex.A1 to A6. The appellant was examined as DW.1 and on her behalf, 4 documents were marked as Exs. B1 to B4.
6. On consideration of oral and documentary evidence available on record, the Trial Court came to the conclusion that the suit property was alienated by the 3rd respondent/1st defendant in favour of the appellant for family necessity and therefore, the plaintiffs are not entitled to
The court established that a sale of ancestral property requires clear evidence of family necessity to be binding on co-owners, and the limitation period for challenging such sales is twelve years un....
Point of law: “Conduct of indifference or Acquiescence and held that, it is settled law that an estoppel may arise as against persons who have not willfully made any misrepresentation, and whose cond....
The legal principle established is that in cases involving the sale of joint family property, the burden of proving legal necessity lies with the purchaser only if the plaintiffs have properly pleade....
The validity of a sale deed in the context of family necessity and the application of limitation periods under the Limitation Act, 1963.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of evidence in establishing the nature of the suit property and the entitlement to seek relief by way of partition, as well as the i....
The validity of a sale deed executed by a Hindu Undivided Family member is upheld when legal necessity is demonstrated, despite claims of ancestral rights by co-parceners.
A member of an Aliyasantana family has a pre-existing right to seek partition of family property without needing to cancel a sale deed executed by another family member, provided the alienation was n....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
