Back
2025 Supreme(Mad) 4888
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. Sathish Kumar, J.
C.Murali - Appellant
Versus
S.Kumar @ Kumarasami and ors. - Respondents
S.A.No.1229 of 2009
Decided On : 12-03-2025
Important Points
Subject
Property Law - Partition and Joint Family Property
Headnote
(B) Partition - Rights of Co-parceners - The court reaffirmed that once property is established as joint family property, all members are entitled to their shares, irrespective of the timing of claims or sales made during litigation. (Paras 1-39)
(C) Lis Pendens - The doctrine of lis pendens applies, and subsequent purchasers are bound by the outcome of pending litigation regarding the property. (Paras 1-39)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for partition of property claimed to be joint family property, against the defendants who had sold the property to a fourth party. The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, granting a 1/3rd share, which was upheld by the appellate court.
Findings of Court:
The courts found that the property was indeed joint family property, and the defendants failed to establish it as self-acquired.
Issues: Whether the property is joint family or self-acquired, and whether the sale to the fourth defendant is valid given the pending suit.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the necessity for the party claiming self-acquisition to provide clear evidence of independent acquisition, which the defendants failed to do. The absence of challenge from the original defendants regarding the joint family status further supported the plaintiff's claim.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
For the Appellant : Mr. T.M.Hariharan
For the Respondent: Mr. N.Sridhar for Mr.R.Bharath Kumar
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. plaintiff seeks partition of joint family property. (Para 1 , 2 , 4) |
| 2. defendants argue property is self-acquired. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. plaintiff fails to prove joint family nucleus. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. defendants assert legal necessity for sale. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 5. joint family property established despite sale. (Para 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 6. evidence supports joint family property claim. (Para 22 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29) |
| 7. court dismisses appeal; property is joint family. (Para 30 , 31) |
| 8. legal principles on joint family property established. (Para 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38) |
JUDGMENT :
N. Sathish Kumar, J.
This appeal has been filed to set aside the judgment and decree passed in A.S No. 5 of 2008 by the Principal District Judge, Principal District Court, Coimbatore dated 13.07.2009 and confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Principal Sub Judge, Principal Sub Court, Coimbatore in O.S No. 122 of 2005 dated 23.04.2007.
2. Originally suit in O.S No.122 of 2005 was filed by the first respondent seeking for partition of the suit property into three equal shares and for allotment and possession of 1/3rd share. The plaintiff is the son the defendants 1 and 2. The third defendant is the sister of the plaintiff.
3. The parties are referred to as per their own ranking before the Trial Court.
4. It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit property is a joint family property acquired during the lifetime of his paternal grandfather Ramasami Gounder and grandmother Karuppathal. Ramasami Gounder and Karuppathal and other children conveyed the suit properties vide sale deed dated 13.02.1974 in favour of his defendants 1 and 2. The suit is a joint family property as per the recitals in the sale deed. Even though as per the recitals of the sale deed that the second defendant along with the first defendant has purchased the suit properties, she is only a name lender and no separate consideration passed from her. Hence, she has no independent right over the suit property. The purchase was made as the joint family property represented by the first defendant as Kartha. The suit property always remained as the joint family property in the hands of the plaintiff and the first defendant and the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3 are in joint possession of the suit property. The plaintiff is entitled to one third share by birth and thus, the three co-parceners are the plaintiff, the first defendant and third defendant. While things stood thus, the defendants 1 and 2 tried to alienate the suit property in favour of the fourth defendant/appellant. Hence, the plaintiff issued a legal notice and thereafter, the present suit has been filed.
5. It is the contention of the second defendant in the written statement that the suit properties are not joint family properties as claimed by the plaintiff. Originally, the southern portion of the suit property was purchased by Karuppathal/grand mother of the plaintiff vide sale deed dated 07.10.1946. The northern portion of the suit property was purchased by Ramasamy Gounder vide sale deed dated 07.02.1959 from Narayana Naicker. Consequently, the two sites constituted one unit and were in respective possession of the husband and wife. In fact, the property devolved from a maternal line and therefore, cannot be described as ancestral property. Further, they mortgaged the suit property to one Ramaswamy Gounder and borrowed a sum of Rs.1000/- and thereafter, on 11.12.1964, the mortgage deed was discharged. Thereafter, since, the Ramasami Gounder was indebted to Thudiyalur Co-operative Society to the extent of Rs.3000/-, they entered into an agreement of sale with defendants 1 and 2 fixing the sale price as Rs.7500/- and an advance of Rs.4000 was also received by them. Thereafter, sale deed was executed on 13.02.1974 and the defendants 1 and 2 have improved the built up area out of their own exertions and savings. It is the further contention that after the marriage of the second defendant, the
