Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 85307
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. Sathish Kumar, J
S.Palani @ Sundar – Appellant
Versus
Sundararaju – Respondent
A.S.(MD)No.198 of 2018|A.S.(MD)No.203 of 2018|O.S.No.218 of 2010|O.S.No.202 of 2015
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.V. Ramakrishnan
For the Respondents: Mrs.J. Anandavalli
The court ruled on the necessity of proving joint family property claims, emphasizing that mere assertions without supporting evidence are insufficient for establishing the properties as joint family assets.
Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code - Section 96 - Partition Suit - The plaintiff sought partition of ancestral and self-acquired properties but faced dismissal in both suits due to failure to establish the properties as joint family assets - The defendants contended these were self-acquired properties - The trial court held that the 'A' Schedule properties were joint family properties, but 'B' and 'C' schedules were self-acquired by each defendant - The principle of blending was not established. (Paras 6-40)
(B) Legal principles of joint family property - To claim properties as joint family assets, the plaintiff must prove that they were bought with joint family funds or constitute a blending of individual and joint family assets which the plaintiff failed to demonstrate. (Paras 37, 32)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. introduction to joint appeal suits (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. defendants' claims of property ownership (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. framed issues of trial court (Para 6) |
| 4. trial court's judgments overview (Para 7 , 8) |
| 5. appellant's arguments presented (Para 9 , 10) |
| 6. defendants' counterarguments presented (Para 12) |
| 7. court's examination of property purchase claims (Para 14 , 15 , 19 , 20) |
| 8. deliberation on evidence and admissibility (Para 21 , 22 , 36) |
| 9. establishment of property as joint family property (Para 26 , 28 , 30 , 32 , 34) |
| 10. final judgment and order (Para 40) |
COMMON JUDGMENT
The plaintiff in O.S.No.218 of 2010 and who is also the sole defendant in O.S.No.202 of 2015 has come up with these Appeal Suits aggrieved by the dismissal of his suit for partition in respect of 'B' and 'C' Schedule properties and decree passed against him in the suit for bare injunction.
2. The suit in O.S.No.218 of 2010 was filed by the appellant herein for partition and the suit in O.S.No.202 of 2015 was filed by the 1st defendant in O.S.No.218 of 2010 against the plaintiff therein for permanent injunction. Since a joint trial was conducted and the evidence was recorded in common in O.S.No. 218/2010, the parties are referred according to their rankings in O.S.No.218 of 2010 for the sake of clarity.
3. The brief facts, leading to the filing of these Appeal Suits, are as follows:-
3.a. The plaintiff in O.S.No.218 of 2010 is the son of 1st and 2nd defendants, and defendants 3 to 5 are his brothers. It is the case of the plaintiff that 'A' Schedule Property is ancestral property of the family. The said lands were cultivated by the entire family including the plaintiff. The plaintiff had secured a job in U.A.E. and from and out of his earnings, he had sent substantial amounts to the the 1st defendant/father and the 1st defendant had acquired several properties in the name of 1st defendant as well as in the name of defendants 2 to 5, besides 3 houses had also been constructed with the help of fund provided by the plaintiff. The said ancestral house and the ancestral properties are described as 'A' Schedule property. The properties purchased in the name of defendants from the funds provided by the plaintiff are described as item 'B' and 'C' in the Schedule. Hence, it is the contention of the plaintiff that all the properties are in joint possession and enjoyment of the family. The plaintiff also took defendants 3 to 5 to U.A.E. for employment. However, they returned back to India to look after the properties of the family.
3.b. Though B and C schedule properties were acquired out of the funds provided by the plaintiff, he himself had treated those properties as joint family properties along with the defendants. However, when the dispute arose between the parties it was agreed in the negotiation held in the month of January 2010 that the plaintiff shall be allotted 1/4th share in all the properties. When the matter stood thus the 1st defendant has filed a suit for permanent injunction in respect of suit B and C-Schedule properties. According to the plaintiff, the defendants 1 to 3 and 5 are deemed to be in joint possession, though the plaintiff parted with amounts to purchase the properties in the name of the 1st defendant. Hence the suit for partition.
3.c The suit in O.S.No.202 of 2015 filed by the 1st defendant for permanent injunction restraining the plaintiff in O.S.No.218 of 2010, his men, agents and servants from in any way interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment.
4. Denying that suit B and C-Schedule properties purchased from out of the funds provided by the plaintiff, it is the contention of the defendants 1, 2 & 4 that those properties are absolute properties of the defendants. In fact, 1st defendant went to Dubai in 1976 and had been working there for two years. Subsequently, he shifted his employment to Singapore for one year and thereafter, he held up at Iraq for about 2 years. He had worked hard for the welfare of the family a
