Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 19906
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Honourable Mr Justice RMT. TEEKAA RAMAN
CHAKRAVATHY VENGATARANGAM – Appellant
Versus
JOSEPH VENKATARANGAM (DIED) – Respondent
The validity of an ancient release deed can be established through statutory presumption under the Indian Evidence Act, even without the original signatories' testimony if sufficient evidence of authenticity is provided.
Headnote:
Partition - Family Law - Indian Evidence Act Section 90 - The court affirmed the release deed's validity, emphasizing that it met statutory criteria, and recognized the plaintiffs' lack of claim in the property due to prior surrender by their father.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs sought partition of inherited property, claiming to be the children of Vincent, asserting their right despite a release deed allegedly enacted by their father in favor of the father's brothers. Defendants contended that the plaintiffs had no rights due to this deed.
Issues: Whether the plaintiffs are the legitimate children of Vincent and entitled to a share of the suit property, and whether the release deed in favor of Lionel is valid and binding.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that, based on the evidentiary support and the established validity of the release deed under the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, the plaintiffs were not entitled to any claim over the property.
Final Decision: The appeal is dismissed, confirming the lower court's judgment and decree.
J U D G M E N T
Parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court, for the sake of convenience.
2. The unsuccessful plaintiffs are the appellants herein. The suit is filed for preliminary decree of partition by dividing the suit property into three equal shares by metes and bounds and allot 1/3rd share to the plaintiffs.
3. The brief facts necessary for determination of the appeal are as follows -
3(a) The plaint proceeds on the basis that the father of the plaintiffs and the father of the defendants 1 to 3 are the sons of late Frank Vernon Venkatarangam. The plaintiffs are brothers and sisters and they are sons and daughter of late V.E.P.Venkatarangam. The defendants 1 & 2 are sons of W.V.Venkatarangam. The third defendant is the son of K.V.Venkatarangam.
3(b) As per pleadings, the suit property belongs to grandfather of plaintiffs namely Frank Vernon Venkatarangam. After his demise, the suit property was in possession by father of plaintiffs and defendants. The Power of Attorney of defendants 1 & 2 alongwith 3rd defendant tried to alienate the suit property including the share of the plaintiffs without their consent and knowledge and defendants 1 & 2 are collecting rent of Rs.700/- per mensem from the suit property. The plaintiffs approached the defendants for partition of the suit property but they did not turn up instead, entered into sale agreement with the 4th defendant Raja who was subsequently impleaded vide I.A.No.472 of 2004 dated 31.01.2006. Since the sale deed is binding upon the plaintiffs, they issued legal notice Ex.A1 on 05.01.2003 calling upon the defendants for partition. As they failed to either reply to the notice or to divide the suit property, the present suit has been filed.
4. Written statement was filed by defendants 1 and 2 through their Power of Attorney. 3rd defendant adopted the said written statement.
5. The 4th defendant – agreement holder also filed separate written statement .
6 (a) The genealogy as per the defendants 1 & 2 based upon the written statement is hereunder.
GENEALOGY Frank Venon (deceased)
|
----------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | | | | |
Lionel Vincent Oscar Christodass Grade Mummy Mary (son) (son) (son) (daughters)
| |
1. Joseph (D1) 1. Prabudass (D3)
2. George (D2) 2.John Lionel
3.Minor Pramila
6(b) The summand substance of the written statement filed by defendants 1 & 2 are to the effect that there was a registered released deed Ex.B1 dated 18.04.1949 by which Vincent and Oscar Christodass released their interest in the suit property in favour of Lionel after receiving Rs.1,000/- each for the consideration and from the date of Ex.B1 - release deed, Lionel and his heirs were in absolute possession and enjoyment of the suit property. During registration of Ex.B1 – release deed, Oscar Christodass signed for himself and as guardian for his heirs. Written statement further proceeds on the basis that Vincent married Dorothy through whom he had no children.
Thus, the claim of the plaintiffs that they are heirs of Vincent is highly false. Hence, the plaintiffs are stranger to the family of Frank Vernon. Lilly Ragavayya and her son Peter Raghavayya are the general Power of Attorney to defendants 1 & 2. The suit property was leased by the defendants 1 & 2 to the 4th defendant Raja and his son Sam Daniel.
6(c) It is further stated that even assuming that the plaintiffs are children of Vincent, Vincent himself released his interest in the suit property in favour of Lionel and on the date of the alleged legal notice, the defendants 1 & 2 were in Canada. Hence, as a utter stranger, plaintiffs have no right over the suit property and its rent.
6(d) In the additional written statement, it is stated that the 4th defendant has not purchased any portion of the suit property and hence he is unnecessary party to the above suit.
7. In the written statement filed by the impleaded 4th defendant, it is stated that two sale deeds were executed by defendants 1 & 2
