Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Mad) 3701

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
J. NISHA BANU, R.KALAIMATHI, JJ.
G.Karthikeyan - Appellant
Versus
Dr.G.Thirumalaivasan - Respondent
A.S.No.551 of 2023 and CMP.No.24093 of 2023
Decided on : 03-01-2025
Advocate Appeared :
For the Appellants : Mr.P.M.Bakthavatsalam
For the Respondent : Mr.J.Selvarajan

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr.P.M.Bakthavatsalam
For the Respondent: Mr.J.Selvarajan

Ownership of property established through financial contribution and valid settlement deeds supersedes claims of joint family ownership without corroborative evidence.

Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Relevant provisions cited concerning mandatory and permanent injunctions - Determination of ownership and possession of property - The plaintiff proved ownership of the property purchased with his funds yet held in his mother's name, while the defendants claimed joint ownership based on contributions - Court emphasized that the proof of ownership and the nature of the settlement deed were critical. (Paras 11, 12, 13, 21, 25)

(B) Joint Family Property - The claim of joint family property was rejected as the defendants failed to provide evidence of contribution to its purchase - Court reiterated that a settlement deed transferring ownership to the plaintiff was valid and enforceable. (Paras 12, 14, 22, 24)

Facts of the case:
The plaintiff filed a suit against his brother and sister-in-law for mandatory and permanent injunctions seeking possession of a property purchased through his earnings but registered in his mother's name; the defendants claimed joint ownership based on familial contributions. The plaintiff demonstrated that the property was acquired with his money. (Paras 3-6)

Findings of Court:
The court found in favor of the plaintiff, determining he was the rightful owner of the property based on the evidence supporting his claim. The defendants were directed to vacate the property within two months and permanently restrained from any further interference. (Paras 13, 27)

Issues: The main issues revolved around the plaintiff's entitlement to mandatory and permanent injunctions and the validity of the defendants' claims of co-ownership. (Paras 11-12)

Ratio Decidendi: The court highlighted the absence of evidence from the defendants to substantiate their claims of ownership, reaffirming the principle that the settlement deed legally transferred ownership to the plaintiff. Ownership established by proof of the property's acquisition funded by the plaintiff was decisive in granting the requested relief. (Paras 21, 25-26)

Result: Appeal dismissed; defendants to vacate and refrain from interference.

Table of Content
1. suit for mandatory injunction regarding property possession. (Para 1 , 2)
2. ownership dispute and property acquisition details (Para 3 , 4 , 6 , 7 , 10)
3. joint family contributions in property purchase (Para 8 , 9)
4. trial court's assessment of evidence and issues framed (Para 11 , 12)
5. defendants' arguments against validity of ownership settlement (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17)
6. evidence confirming plaintiff's ownership rights (Para 21 , 22 , 25)
7. court's assessment on evidence of ownership and rights. (Para 23)
8. court finds no errors in trial court's judgment (Para 27 , 29)

JUDGMENT :

J.NISHA BANU, J.

This Appeal suit is filed by the appellants/defendants as against the decreetal of the suit in O.S.No.2080 of 2019 dated 09.12.2022.

2. The respondent herein is the plaintiff and filed a suit in O.S.No.2080 of 2019 on the file of XVIII Additional City Civil Court, Chennai, praying for the relief of mandatory injunction directing the defendants to vacate and handover or deliver the vacant possession of the suit properties to the plaintiff without any condition and for the consequential relief of permanent injunction that the defendant should not in any manner interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property and cost for the suit.

3. (a) The defendants are the appellants herein. The Plaintiff/respondent filed a suit for the relief of Mandatory injunction as stated above. The Plaintiff/respondent is the younger brother of the 1st defendant/1st appellant and the 2nd defendant/2nd appellant is the wife of the 1st defendant. The plaintiff and the 1st defendant are the sons of Ganesamurthy and G.Nageswari.

(b) The plaintiff completed M.B.B.S course in the year January 2000 and worked at Kerala and Chennai. Thereafter, he was working at London. He used to send all his earnings to his HSBC Bank Account, Mylapore Branch, Chennai bearing Account No.041-115262-006-savings account -NRE and he has given power to his father to utilize some amount for their livelihood.

(c) In 2004, based on the plaintiff's instructions, his father purchased a house property on Kutchery Road, Mylapore, Chennai, in his mother's name. The property, measuring 954 sq. ft., was purchased through a registered sale deed on 21.01.2004, for the consideration of Rs.22,00,000, which the plaintiff paid directly from his account to the property vendor.

(d) After purchasing the property, the plaintiff's parents moved into it, bringing the first defendant also, who was unemployed and financially dependent on the parents. The plaintiff would visit India once in a year to see his parents in Chennai. In 2006, the plaintiff’s mother transferred the suit property into plaintiff's name, through a registered settlement deed on 14.06.2006.

(e) The 1st defendant married the 2nd defendant in the year 2008. After marriage, the 1^st defendant continued to live with the plaintiff's parents in the suit property. Plaintiff insisted his parents as well as the defendants to vacate the suit property. Despite repeated requests from the plaintiff, the defendants refused to vacate the suit property. Taking advantage of the plaintiff's absence in India, the defendants continued their stay in the suit property and that the defendants are trespassers, unlawfully occupying the suit property.

4. The plaintiff came to India during January 2018, but the 1st defendant has prevented the plaintiff from entering into the suit property. Despite several efforts, the plaintiff was unable to enter into the suit property, therefore, plaintiff lodged a police complaint on 03.03.2018 before the Inspector of Police, E-1 Mylapore Police Station who issued CSR No.149/2018. Since no action was taken by the police, he filed another complaint on 28.03.2018 with the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Mylapore, but again no legal action was taken. Therefore he approached High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, by filing a Writ Petition in W.P.No.8467/2018 . The said writ petition