SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Mad) 3427

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.S. SUNDAR, C. KUMARAPPAN, JJ.
N. Dharmalingam – Appellant
Versus
N. Ayyavoo [Died] – Respondent 
A.S. No. 643 of 2008, C.R.P. No. 1962 of 2013
Decided On : 14-12-2023

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : A.K. Sriram, D. Balachandran
For the Respondents: G. Masilamani, T. Sathiyamoorthy

The court established that without evidence proving properties as joint family assets, claims to them by family members fail, reaffirming the burden of proof lies with those asserting joint status.

Headnote:(A) Hindu Succession Act - Sections 15 and 14(1) - Partition Suit - Entitlement to Shares - Plaintiff entitled to 6/25 share in joint family property and 1/3rd share in various properties, while several items were deemed separate properties of defendants based on lack of evidence of joint family funds. Court emphasized on burden of proof regarding the character of properties and the necessity to join all necessary parties in suit. (Paras 60-66)

(B) Joint Family Property - No presumption that property was joint family property unless it could be shown that it was acquired with funds from the joint family or was treated as such by the family. Relevant rulings of Supreme Court stressed on the burden of proof concerning the nature of property acquisition. (Paras 20-40)

(C) Partnership Business - Court held that properties obtained from partnerships where individual family members were engaged cannot be presumed to be joint family property without sufficient evidence showing their acquisition background. (Paras 44-48)

Facts of the case:
The appellant sought partition of joint family property, asserting rights over various items acquired by his father’s joint efforts including businesses, contested by the defendants claiming separate ownership. (Paras 1-6)

Findings of Court:
The Court upheld ownership of specific properties as joint family resources, while others were deemed separate due to lack of evidence connecting them to joint family assets. (Paras 60-66)

Issues: Main issues centered on non-joinder of necessary parties in the partition suit, characterization of property as joint family vs. separate, and rights of the parties involved. (Paras 8-13)

Ratio Decidendi: The Court reiterated that unless a property can be shown to have been acquired through joint family funds or treated as joint, rights claimed must be supported by solid evidence. (Paras 20-40)

Result: Appeal partly allowed; judgement and decree of the Trial Court set aside; plaintiff entitled to specific shares based on findings regarding property ownership. (Para 66)

Table of Content
1. factual background of familial relationships and property claims. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. arguments opposing joint family property characterization. (Para 7 , 11 , 12)
3. court's findings on joint family properties versus individual properties. (Para 8 , 10 , 19 , 60)
4. legal principles governing joint family property acquisitions. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23)
5. final judgment and orders regarding property shares. (Para 67 , 68 , 75)

JUDGMENT :

S.S. SUNDAR, J.

1. The plaintiff in the suit in OS.No.17/2006 on the file of Additional District Court-cum-Fast Track Court No.1, Erode, is the appellant in the above Appeal. The suit is for partition of plaintiff's 1/3rd share in all the suit properties which are described as Items No.1 to 14.

2. Respondents 1 to 12 are defendants 1 to 12 in the suit in OS.No.17/2006. The appellant and respondents, who are plaintiff and defendants, are close relatives. The appellant who is the plaintiff, is the son of one Thiru.Nanjappa Mudaliyar who died in the year 1952. The 1st defendant is none else than the brother of the appellant herein. The 6th defendant is the wife of 1st defendant. Thiru.Nanjappa Mudaliyar had two wives. Through the first wife Chinnammal, he had a son by name Nachimuthu, who died on 06.07.2000. Wife of Thiru.Nachimuthu, Mrs.Parvatham, died even earlier on 02.04.1993. Thiru.Nanjappa Mudailyar had three more daughters through his first wife Smt.Chinnammal. Admittedly, Chinnammal, the first wife died long back and after her life time, Thiru.Nanjappa Mudaliyar married second wife. The daughters of Thiru.Nanjappa Mudaliyar, through first wife had no right or claim in the properties of Thiru.Nanjappa Mudaliyar. Therefore, they were not impleaded as parties in the suit. The 2nd wife of Thiru.Nanjappa Mudaliyar is Smt.Seerangayammal died on 22.03.1991. Through the 2nd wife Thiru.Nanjappa Mudaliyar had three sons by name Tvl.Sadasivam, Iyyavu and Dharmalingam and two daughters by name Pappathi @ Sarojini and Chandra, who is the 12th defendant in the suit. Thiru.Sadasivam died on 04.12.1983 and he had one son by name Mohanasundaram and three daughters by name Jayanthi, Santhi and Kalaivani. The son and daugthers of Thiru.Sadasivam are impleaded as defendants 2 to 5. The wife of Thiru.Iyyavu by name Smt.Sampoornam is the 6th defendant in the suit. The sister of plaintiff and 1st defendant by name Pappathi @ Sarojini died on 27.09.2003 even before filing of suit and therefore, her son by name Murugesan is impleaded as 7th defendant. The 7th defendant also died on 22.04.2010 during pendency of the proceedings and therefore, his heirs were impleaded as defendants 8 to 11.

3. The case of the plaintiff in the plaint is that his father Thiru.Nanjappa Mudaliyar purchased Item No.1 of the Suit Schedule properties out of his income from the business as he himself was a weaver. It is the further case of plaintiff that after the death of Thiru.Nanjappa Mudaliyar, his elder son Thiru.Nachimuthu [born through the 1st wife] took over the business and he was acting as a Manager of the joint family. From out of the joint family income Thiru.Nachimuthu started a business in textiles along with one Thambanna Mudaliyar and Nachimuthu. It is his case that Nachimuthu was carrying on the said business in his capacity as a joint family Manager. It is also stated that after the retirement of Thambanna Mudaliyar, the other partner in the business, Thiru.Nachimuthu, took over the entier business. It is the case of plaintiff that female members of the family were made as members of Erode Weavers Cooperative Society. Item No.2 in the suit schedule properties was allotted in the name of mother of plaintiff and 1st defendant, namely, Seerangayammal and the property in Item No.3 was allotted in the name of Parvatham, wife of Thiru.Nachimuthu. Since Item Nos.2 and 3 though purchased in the names of female members of the family, the female members had no independent source of income to purchase the suit

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top