Back
2024 Supreme(Mad) 2408
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
S.SRIMATHY, J.
V.Murugesan - Appellant
Versus
V.Marimuthu - Respondent
S.A.(MD)No.134 of 2017 and C.M.P(MD)Nos. 2132 of 2017 & 855 of 2022
Decided on : 20-12-2024
Important Points
Subject
Property Law - Declaratory Relief
Act Referred
SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT: S.34
HINDU ADOPTIONS AND MAINTENANCE ACT: S.11
Headnote
(B) Adoption - Legal issues surrounding the validity of adoption were addressed, questioning whether the civil requirements for valid adoption were met. The court found the adoption of the second plaintiff was barred due to prior adoption of the defendant. (Paras 26, 28, 30)
(C) Ownership and Possession - The plaintiffs' assertions of ownership and prior possession were challenged, and the court found their claims unsupported by adequate proof of prior tenancy or ownership affirmation. (Paras 20, 36)
Facts of the case:
The dispute involved two defendants claiming rights to property previously owned and bequeathed by the first plaintiff. The matter revolved around conflicting claims of adoption and ownership over the same property.
Findings of Court:
The court concluded that plaintiffs' prayer for negative declaration was improper, and ownership was affirmed with adequate compensation necessary for property equalization after allotment.
Issues: Whether a negative declaration can be prayed for without claiming a positive title, as well as determination of proper valuation for court fees.
Ratio Decidendi: The court mandated that proper claims for ownership must be made rather than negative assertions, citing the inability of one party to claim ownership without a legal basis. The court also emphasized the insufficiency of the proof of prior tenancy lodged by the plaintiffs.
Result: Second Appeal Allowed.
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr.S.Natesh Raja
For the Respondents: Mr.M.R.Sreenivasan
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts of the case concerning property ownership claims. (Para 3 , 6 , 10) |
| 2. arguments made concerning parties' rights and claims. (Para 4 , 8 , 9 , 11) |
| 3. issues surrounding court fee valuation and entitlement. (Para 14 , 18 , 22 , 23) |
| 4. court's observation on the sufficiency of evidence. (Para 17 , 24 , 25 , 27) |
| 5. conclusions drawn regarding plaintiffs' claims and ancestry. (Para 32) |
JUDGMENT :
S. SRIMATHY, J.
The present Second Appeal is filed by the defendant in the suit to set aside the Judgment and Decree dated 25.10.2016 passed in A.S.No.53 of 2015 by the VI Additional District Court, Madurai by reversing the Judgment and Decree dated 17.06.2015 passed in O.S. No.389 of 2008 by the III Additional Sub Court, Madurai.
2. The defendant is the appellant herein and the plaintiffs 2 & 3 are the respondents herein. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as plaintiffs and defendant as per the ranking in the suit.
3. The plaintiffs have filed O.S.No.611 of 2002 on the file of District Munsif Court, Madurai, thereafter the same was transferred and renumbered as O.S.No.294 of 2002 on the file of District Munsif Court, Thirumangalam, again transferred and renumbered as O.S.No.389 of 2008 on the file of III Additional Sub Court, Madurai.
4. The plaintiffs had filed the suit for declaration to declare that the defendant has got no common ownership in Item No.1 of the suit property, consequential prayer for mandatory injunction directing the defendant to clear the trespass and restoring the possession to the plaintiffs and permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the suit property by the 2nd plaintiff.
5. The suit was filed by the 1st plaintiff C.Velusamy and the 2nd plaintiff V.Marimuthu and they claim that the 1st plaintiff C.Velusamy is the adopted father of the 2nd plaintiff. After the demise of the 1st plaintiff on 29.10.2003, the 2nd plaintiff was recorded as legal representative of the 1st plaintiff as per order dated 28.01.2004. Then the 3rd plaintiff was impleaded as per order dated 23.01.2008.
6. The brief facts as stated in the plaint is the 1st plaintiff C.Velusamy is the adopted father of the 2nd plaintiff V.Marimuthu. The 3rd plaintiff is the wife of the 2nd plaintiff. The 1st plaintiff father had filed the suit stating that he and his wife Panchavarnathammal had adopted the 2nd plaintiff as their adopted son while he was 6 days old and he was named as Marimuthu and all were living together as members of Hindu Joint Family. Thereafter that the marriage of the 2nd plaintiff with one Kalarathinam, the 3rd plaintiff was celebrated on 22.05.1996 at Madurai and she hails from their own caste Aasari. The 1st item of the suit property was purchased by the deceased 1st plaintiff and his wife jointly vide registered sale deed, dated 13.05.1964 and they were in possession and enjoyment of the same. Then the 1st plaintiff and his wife had executed registered Will dated 16.10.2000 in respect of the 1st item of the suit property bequeathing the same to the 2nd plaintiff. The 1st plaintiff’s wife died in the plaintiffs’ residence on 30.05.2001 and her last rights were performed by the 2nd plaintiff, adopted son.
7. After the demise of the 1st plaintiff’s wife, the plaintiffs are living as members of the Hindu Joint Family. The 1st plaintiff had sold the 1st item of the said property for valid consideration in favour of the 2nd plaintiff and 2nd item in favour of the 3rd plaintiff under registered sale deeds, dated 25.06.2001. As per Will, dated 16.10.2000 the 1st item of the suit property was inherited by the 2nd plaintiff as adopted son, after the lifetime of the said Panchavarnathammal and the 1st plaintiff. The 1st plaintiff had added the adopted son 2nd plaintiff in order to avoid any technical objection. The 1st plaintiff further stated that the defendant falsely claim that he is the adopted son of the 1st plaintiff and his wife Panchavarna
