Back
MADRAS HIGH COURT
Honourable Mr Justice G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN
Pachaiyammal (Died) – Appellant
Versus
SANTHI – Respondent
SA/1067/2022
PARTITION - RELEASE DEED - VALIDITY - PIOUS OBLIGATION - INDIAN CONTRACT ACT, 1872 - SECTION 25 - APPLICABILITY
Fact of the Case:
The respondent filed a suit for partition of the suit properties, claiming that they belonged to her father-in-law and that she was entitled to a 1/5th share as his legal heir. The appellants, who were the defendants in the suit, resisted the claim, contending that the respondent's husband had already relinquished his rights in the property by executing a release deed in favor of the third appellant, who had repaid a debt incurred by him.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the respondent was entitled to a 1/5th share in the suit properties as the release deed executed by her husband was not valid. The court found that the third appellant had failed to prove that he had repaid the debt incurred by the respondent's husband and that the respondent was not under any pious obligation to settle the loan incurred by her husband.
Issues: 1. Whether the suit was maintainable in light of the release deed executed by the respondent's husband?2. Whether the respondent had a pious obligation to settle the loan incurred by her husband?3. Whether the trial court and the first appellate court erred in discarding the release deed executed by the respondent's husband?4. Whether the trial court and the first appellate court erred in decreeing the suit based on the respondent's feigned ignorance of the loans incurred by her husband?5. Whether the trial court and the first appellate court erred in not considering Section 25 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, when decreeing the suit in favor of the respondent?6. Whether the first appellate court erred in confirming the judgment and decree of the trial court?
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the following legal principles in reaching its decision:* A release deed must be supported by consideration to be valid.* A pious obligation does not arise in the case of a debt incurred by a husband.* A party cannot claim a right over the property of another party without proving that they have a valid title to the property.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the second appeal and upheld the judgment and decree of the lower courts, which had decreed the suit for partition and allotted a 1/5th share in the suit properties to the respondent.
S.A.No.1067 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 09.01.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
S.A.No.1067 of 2022
and C.M.P.No.22927 of 2022
Pachaiyammal (Died)
1. Saraswathi
2. Gnanavalli
3. P.Radhakrishnan
..
Appellants
Vs.
Santhi
..
Respondent
Prayer:- Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of CPC to set aside the
Judgment and Decree dated 06.11.2019 made in A.S.No.16 of 2018 on the file
Additional District Court (FTC), Arani, Thiruvannamalai District in confirming
the Judgment and Decree dated 23.10.2017 made in O.S.No.8 of 2013 on the
file of Sub Court, Cheyyar, Thiruvannamalai District and to allow the above
Second appeal.
For Appellants
: Mr.J.Prakasam
JUDGMENT
This second appeal has been filed as against the Judgment and Decree
dated 06.11.2019 made in A.S.No.16 of 2018 on the file of the Additional
District Court (FTC), Arani, Thiruvannamalai District, confirming the
Judgment and Decree dated 23.10.2017 made in O.S.No.8 of 2013 on the file of
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.1067 of 2022
Sub Court, Cheyyar, Thiruvannamalai District, thereby decreed the suit for
partition.
2. The respondent is the plaintiff in the suit in O.S.No.8 of 2013 filed for
partition. The case of the plaintiff is that the suit properties belong to her father-
in-law. He purchased the first item of the suit properties from one Kanniammal
by the registered sale deed dated 16.05.1955. The second item of the suit
properties are ancestral properties. Her father-in-law was in possession and
enjoyment of the suit properties and patta was also issued in his favour. The
first defendant is the wife of one Perumal Gounder and the defendants 2 to 4
and one Govindan, who is the husband of the plaintiff and the plaintiff, are all
legal heirs of the said Perumal Gounder. After his demise, all the legal heirs are
enjoying the suit properties. The plaintiff and her husband were doing coolie
work and also cultivating the lands in the village. While being so, the
defendants 1 to 3 colluded with each other and entered into release deed dated
02.06.2008, thereby released their 3/5th share in respect of the suit property in
favour of the fourth defendant. In the meanwhile, the said Perumal Gounder
died on 04.11.2010 leaving behind the plaintiff as his only legal heir.
Therefore, she filed a suit for partition.
Page 2 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.1067 of 2022
3. Resisting the same, the appellants herein filed their written statement
stating that the respondent herein is not entitled for 1/5th share in the suit
schedule property. The husband of the respondent i.e, the said Govindan
borrowed loan and he could not repay the same. Therefore, he requested the
fourth defendant/third appellant herein to settle the amount. Accordingly, the
said loan was settled by the 4th defendant and he released the said Govindan's
liability. Therefore, the respondent and her husband released their share in
respect of the suit property in favour of the third appellant herein. Therefore,
the respondent is not entitled for 1/5th share of the suit schedule property.
4. On behalf of the respondent she had examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and
marked Exs.A1 to 12. On the side of the appellants, they had examined D.Ws.1
and 2 and marked Exs.B1 to 5. On a perusal of oral and documentary
evidences, the Trial Court decreed the suit and alloted 1/5th share in the suit
property in favour of the respondent herein. Aggrieved by the same, the
appellants preferred appeal and the same was also dismissed confirming the
Judgment and Decree passed by the Trial Court. Hence, this second appeal.
Page 3 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.1067 of 2022
5. The appellants raised the following substantial questions of law,
“1. Whether suit is maintainable by the
Respondent/Plaintiff when the Respondent/Plaintiff herself
specifica
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
