Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 12747
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Honourable Ms. Justice P.T. ASHA
LEELAVATHI – Appellant
Versus
GANESAN – Respondent
A claim for inheritance in ancestral property requires robust evidence of kinship, which the plaintiffs failed to establish.
Headnote:
Partition - Property Rights - N/A - The court interpreted property rights under family law, holding that without sufficient proof of kinship, the plaintiffs were not entitled to a share in the ancestral property, influencing their dismissal of the appeal.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs sought partition of ancestral properties, claiming to be the wife and daughter of a deceased individual. A settlement deed was executed to favor another party, and the plaintiffs were contested on their legal claim of heirship.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiffs failed to prove their relationship to the deceased, as no concrete evidence, such as marriage or birth certificates, corroborated their claims, leading to the dismissal of their suit.
Issues: Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a partition of the suit properties based on their claimed relationship with the deceased.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for clear evidence of legal heirship to support claims over ancestral property, ultimately confirming that the lack of documentation undermined the plaintiffs' case.
Final Decision: The appeal is dismissed.
JUDGMENT
The plaintiffs before the Courts below are the appellants before this Court, challenging the judgment and decree passed against them.
2. The facts which have culminated to the filing of the above second appeal are hereinbelow set out and the parties are referred to as before the Trial Court.
FACTS OF THE CASE:
2.1. The above suit was filed by the plaintiffs for partition of their half share in the suit schedule properties. It is their contention that the suit properties belonged to one Veerasamy, son of Perumal, and it was his ancestral properties. Some other properties had been purchased by the said Veerasamy by selling the ancestral properties and these properties have been purchased in the name of the said Veerasamy and the second defendant. Veerasamy had two sons viz., Mukesh Ayodhi and Ganesan who is the first defendant. Mukesh Ayodhi is the father of the first plaintiff and the husband of the second plaintiff. He died on 22.03.2000 leaving behind him the surviving plaintiffs as his legal representatives.
2.2. The plaintiffs would submit that apart from them, there are no other legal representatives for Mukesh Ayodhi. The mother of Mukesh Ayodhi, one Amaravathi died 30 years ago. After the death of Mukesh Ayodhi, with a view of grabbing the property, the first defendant had executed a settlement deed dated 26.03.2002 in favour of the second defendant. In the recitals of the said settlement deed, it has been stated that the first defendant and his father Veerasamy were enjoying the property. Veerasamy died intestate in the year 2004. 2.3. The plaintiffs would submit that the suit properties were being enjoyed as joint family properties and they are entitled to 1/12th share in the suit properties being the legal representatives of the other son of the deceased Veerasamy viz., Mukesh Ayodhi.
2.4. The defendants had filed a written statement inter alia contending that the first defendant had gone to Mumbai in search of job and he had worked in various capacities at Mumbai. Mukesh Ayodhi had only studied upto 8th standard and had refused to go to school and was leading a wayward life. Thereafter, the first defendant had asked the said Mukesh Ayodhi to come to Bombay where he joined the first defendant and worked as a vegetable vendor, coolie, assistant in electrical shop, etc. The said Mukesh Ayodhi had also got into bad company and was involved in petty thefts, Kandhu vatti business, etc., and he had also got arrested and had served term in jail. Thereafter, the first defendant asked him to return to the native village. He had returned to the native village and was in illegal relationship with one Devagi. She had taken him outside the village and lived with him for three days.
2.5. The first defendant would submit that it is at this juncture, when the second plaintiff, who was of a questionable character, had come come in contact with his brother Mukesh Ayodhi. It is his contention that she was already married and was having a child who is the first plaintiff. In the year 2000, Mukesh Ayodhi returned to the Sembalakurichi Village along with the plaintiffs and was in a live-in relationship with the second plaintiff. The second plaintiff is not the legally wedded wife of Mukesh Ayodhi and the first plaintiff is not his child. The said Mukesh Ayodhi, once again, left for Mumbai leaving his earnings with the second plaintiff. The income from the agricultural land was also taken by the second plaintiff. On returning from Mumbai, the said Mukesh Ayodhi asked the second plaintiff to give some money which she refused and therefore, he, on account of her threats, had committed suicide. Therefore, the defendants would submit that neither the second plaintiff nor the first plaintiff had any right, title or interest to the suit properties. The plaintiffs were not the legal representatives of Mukesh Ayodhi and therefore, the defendants sought for the dismissal of the suit.
TRIAL COURT:
3. The Trial Court had framed the following issues.
