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

2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 63326

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP, J
D. Karunakaran – Appellant
Versus
K. Padmanathan – Respondent
Appeal Suit No.806 of 2019



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. S. Parthasarathy, Mr.M.Muthappan
For the Respondents: Mr. J.R.K.Bhavanantham

The court upheld the Plaintiff's preferential right to acquire a half share of the property, declaring a contested sale deed as sham due to collusion and lack of valid consideration.

Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 96 r/w Order XLI, Rule 1 - Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - Section 22 - Partition and sale of property - The trial court decreed the suit for partition, granting preference rights for the Plaintiff to purchase the property against the contested sale to the second Defendant - The court held the rights of pre-emption valid; prior sale was deemed sham due to inadequate consideration and collusion with the first Defendant - No partition established by the Koor-chit due to absence of registration - Appeal dismissed. (Paras 32, 45, 54)

Facts of the case:
The dispute arose from a partition claim over a property, originally owned by the Plaintiff's father, following a settlement deed. The Plaintiff and first Defendant had been in joint possession, but the first Defendant attempted to sell a portion to the second Defendant without the Plaintiff’s consent. The Plaintiff sought to declare the sale as null and void and to establish preferential rights to purchase a half share. The trial court ruled in favor of the Plaintiff.

Findings of Court:
The court found the sale deed to the second Defendant invalid, reaffirming the existence of a preferential right for the Plaintiff to acquire the property. All attempts to deny the pathway for access by the Plaintiff were rejected, cementing the Plaintiff’s rights.

Issues: The main issues included whether the Plaintiff was entitled to partition, preferential rights to purchase, and the status of the sale deed as valid.

Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the sale deed lacked valid consideration and was executed in collusion, thereby undermining the Plaintiff’s access rights and negating the Koor-chit’s validity due to its non-registration.

Result: The appeal is dismissed, affirming the decision of the lower court and the Plaintiff's rights.

Table of Content
1. summary of case details and property ownership (Para 1 , 2)
2. defendant's claims against plaintiff's entitlement (Para 3)
3. defenses presented by the defendants (Para 4)
4. judicial proceedings and court's initial findings (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
5. detailed examination of the evidence presented (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18)
6. legal citations argue against plaintiff's rights (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)
7. defendant's arguments and challenges to ownership (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26)
8. counterclaims and evidence from the defendants (Para 27 , 28 , 29)
9. assessment of the trial court's judgment (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33)
10. observations on the credibility of the evidence (Para 34 , 35 , 36 , 37)
11. judicial interpretation of property rights (Para 38 , 39 , 40 , 41)
12. discussion on property transfers and preemption rights (Para 42 , 43 , 44 , 45)
13. ratio decidendi regarding the sale deed's validity (Para 46 , 47 , 48 , 49)
14. final decision and implications of the judgment (Para 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55)

JUDGMENT

This Appeal Suit had been filed against the judgment and decree dated 31.01.2019 made in O.S.No.10824 of 2010 on the file of the learned VI Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.

2. The brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of this Appeal Suit are as follows:-

2.1. The 1st Defendant is the elder brother of the Plaintiff. One Mr.N.Kanniah Reddy was the father of the Plaintiff and the 1st Defendant. The said Mr.N.Kanniah Reddy was the owner of the premises bearing new No.17, Old No.9, Sampangi Street (formerly known as 4-B, Ramanujulu Reddy Street) West Mambalam, Chennai 600 033, more fully described in the ‘A’ schedule by virtue of sale deed dated 17.2.1968 executed by one T.K.Govindaraj Reddiar in his favour vide registered document No.495/68 within S.R.O. Thyagaraya Nagar and District Registrar, Madras South. The Plaintiff’s father purchased a vacant site in the above mentioned property and put up brick walls laid with asbestos roof and obtained water, sewerage and drainage connection to the above said property and he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. With sound disposing state of mind and out of free will and volition, the deceased Mr.N.Kanniah Reddy executed a registered settlement deed dated 20.11.1971 in document No.1707/1971 within SRO, Thiyagaraya Nagar, settling the life estate in the plaint ‘A’ schedule property to his wife Dhanabackiyammal and divested the vested remainder to his sons namely the Plaintiff and the first Defendant with all the powers of alienation and also delivered possession of the plaint ‘A’ schedule property to his wife Dhanabackiyammal. The Plaintiff’s mother seized the said property and she had been dealing with the property. The records in the Corporation and Chennai Metro Water Sewerage and Drainage connection were mutated in the name of the deceased Dhanabackiyammal for the payment of property tax and water tax. The Plaintiff’s father N.Kanniah Reddy died on 5.3.1982 and his mother Dhanabackiyammal died on 3.5.1994. After the death of their parents, the Plaintiff and the first Defendant were in joint possession of the plaint ‘A’ schedule property. The Plaintiff’s father met with an accident and sustained multiple fractures on right thigh and was hospitalized in Royapettah Hospital for nearly one year and the Plaintiff bestowed his personal care and met out the entire medical expenses of his father apart from his performing obsequies of his father and the sixteenth day ceremony at his own cost. The Plaintiff’s mother was hospitalized in Vijaya Hospital for three months. The first Defendant did not attend the funeral of his parents even and such is the attitude of the first Defendant.

2.2. In the year 1996, the Plaintiff obtained planning permit, approval of the building plan from the Corporation of Chennai and put up superstructure on the remaining vacant site in the plaint ‘A’ schedule property out of his own funds and earnings

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