Back
2025 Supreme(Mad) 3043
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.
Savarimuthu - Appellant
Versus
D. Gandhimathi - Respondent
A.S. No. 233 of 2022
Decided On : 18-03-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : P. Mahalakshmi
For the Respondent: C. Ravichandran
The court emphasized the necessity of proving the authenticity of documents in property disputes, ruling that the plaintiff failed to establish valid title through the Will and sale agreement.
Headnote:(A) Indian Succession Act - Section 228 - Appeal against dismissal of suit for declaration and recovery of possession - Plaintiff claims property through a Will executed by Durairaj Pillai in favor of his wife Mary Marnish - Trial Court found the Will unproven and the sale agreement fabricated - The plaintiff's claims were dismissed due to lack of evidence and proper title. (Paras 1, 4, 18, 30)
(B) Evidence Act - Section 114 - Presumption of documents being fabricated due to inconsistencies in execution and lack of corroborating evidence - The court emphasized the necessity of proving the authenticity of documents in property disputes. (Paras 24, 30)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff, son-in-law of Durairaj Pillai, claimed ownership of the suit property based on a Will and a sale agreement. The defendants contested the validity of these documents, asserting their own rights to the property. (Paras 1, 4)
Findings of Court:
The trial Court found the Will unproven and the sale agreement fabricated, leading to the dismissal of the suit. The appellate court upheld this decision, confirming the trial Court's findings. (Paras 30)
Issues: The main issues included the validity of the Will, the authenticity of the sale agreement, and whether the plaintiff had proper title to the property. (Paras 6, 14)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the plaintiff failed to prove the Will and the sale agreement, emphasizing the need for authenticated documents in property claims. The court also noted the absence of necessary parties in the suit. (Paras 18, 30)
Result: Appeal dismissed; judgment and decree of the trial Court confirmed.
JUDGMENT :
1. Challenging the decree and judgment of the trial Court dismissing the suit for declaration and recovery of possession, the present appeal has been filed by the unsuccessful plaintiff.
2. The parties are arrayed as per their own ranking before the trial Court.
3. The suit property was originally owned by one Durairaj Pillai. The plaintiff is the son-in-law of the the said Durairaj Pillai. According to the plaintiff, the said Durairaj Pillai executed a Will on 19.09.1979 before a notary public at Padang, Indonesia bequeathing all his available properties in favour of his wife Mary Marnish. The said Durairaj Pillai died on 26.05.1985. Therefore, his wife Mary Marnish became entitled not only to the suit property, but also to properties in Indonesia. The daughters and sons of Durairaj Pillai have been given monetary support by their father. Therefore, the suit properties and other properties have been bequeathed in the name of Mary Marnish. On 25.01.1996, the plaintiff and his mother-in-law had entered into an agreement for sale of the suit property for a total sale consideration of Rs.16 lakhs and the plaintiff had paid entire sale consideration on the same day. Later, the said Mary Marnish executed a Special Power of Attorney in favour of her daughter Maria Vimala on 25.01.1996 besides she also executed necessary receipts dated 04.01.1996 and 25.01.1996 in favour of the plaintiff for the receipt of sale consideration from the plaintiff. At the instigation of the defendant, the said Mary Marnish delayed in getting necessary permission from the Reserve Bank of India and it delayed the execution of the sale deed. Hence, the plaintiff has filed a suit in O.S.No.1361 of 2000 for permanent injunction on the file of the Principal District Judge, Coimbatore against his mother-in-law and the defendant from alienating the property. Thereafter, the mother-in-law realized the truth and sent necessary letters to the plaintiff on 17.04.2002 and 26.06.2002 to go ahead with the sale as per the power of attorney. Therefore, the property has been registered in favour of the plaintiff through power of attorney, namely his wife. Hence, the plaintiff has withdrawn the earlier suit. The plaintiff is in possession of the southern side vacant area of the suit property. Mary Marnish executed a sale deed transferring the suit property in favour of the plaintiff through her power agent Mari Vimala on 02.02.2004. While so, the first defendant, who is one of the daughter of the plaintiff's vendor is in possession and enjoyment of the built up portion of the suit property as a tenant. Inspite of several requests being made by the plaintiff to vacate the property, the defendants are illegally squatting in the property. Hence, the suit for declaration and permanent injunction.
4. The suit has been resisted by the first defendant interlia contending that the suit is undervalued. Though the property belong to her father, he has executed a Will on 19.09.1979 and it is her contention that the suit property has not been bequeathed in favour of her mother. The agreement dated 25.01.1996 for sale of the property for a sum of Rs.16 lakhs and the power deed is also denied. After the death of her father, her mother is entitled to 1/3rd share in the property. Her mother died on 07.02.2006 and hence, she is entitled to 5/12th share including her 1/12th share. Further, her mother had also executed a registered sale deed 13.05.2011 in her favour and she is entitled to 9/12th share in the suit property.
5. The second defendant also denied the case of the plaintiff. According to him, Durairaj Pillai executed a Will dated 19.09.1979. His father died on 07.02.2006. It is his further contention that his parents alone are in possession and enjoyment of the property. Hence, opposed the suit.
6. Based on the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed for consideration in the suit :
1. Whether the Will dated 19.09.1979 is true and valid and whether it includes the
