Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1806 (MAD)

H. M. Chandrasekaran v. H. M. Sree Kandaiah

2008-06-17

A.C.ARUMUGAPERUMAL ADITYAN

body2008
Judgment :- This appeal arises out of the Judgment and decree in O.S.No.163 of 1986 on the file of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Krishnagiri. 2. The short facts of the plaint filed by the plaintiff runs as follows: The first defendant is the elder brother of the plaintiff. The second defendant is their mother. One C.Muniappa Chetti was the father of the plaintiff and the first defendant and the husband of the second defendant, who also died on 18. 1978. The plaintiff, first defendant and their father C.Muniappa Chetti constituted a Hindu Joint Family which owned amongst other properties the suit house which is ancestral in nature. Through a registered deed dated 27. 1974 styled as a partition deed, a settlement was entered entered into between the plaintiff, first defendant and their father C.Muniappa Chetti . The suit was filed in respect of the share of their father C.Muniappa Chetti allotted under the said partition deed and the first defendant and the plaintiff were given a sum of Rs.500/- each towards their share in the suit property. The plaintiff was not given any share in the suit property,apart from the said sum of Rs.500/-. Hence, according to the plaintiff, the said deed dated 27. 1974 cannot be construed as a partition deed. C.Muniappa Chetti died on 18. 1978 leaving behind his wife viz., second defendant and two sons, the plaintiff and the first defendant as his only heirs. After the death of C.Muniappa Chetti, the plaintiff became entitled to 4/9th share and the first defendant is entitled to 4/9th share and the second defendant is entitled to 1/9th share in the suit properties. Even if the said deed dated 27. 1974 is construed as a partition deed, the first and second defendants will be entitled to 1/3rd share each and the plaintiff is entitled to the remaining 1/3rd share after the death of C.Muniappa Chetti, the father of the plaintiff and the first defendant. Even before 1974, the plaintiff,first defendant and their father C.Muniappa Chetti were living separately. But, for the sake of convenience, the plaintiff, first defendant and their father C. Muniappa Chetti were in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. After the death of their father, C.Muniappa Chetti, both plaintiff and the defendants were in joint possession of the suit properties. But, for the sake of convenience, the plaintiff, first defendant and their father C. Muniappa Chetti were in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. After the death of their father, C.Muniappa Chetti, both plaintiff and the defendants were in joint possession of the suit properties. The first defendant had acquired vast properties at Bangalore with the help of ancestral joint family funds and they are also joint family properties. Since the plaintiff could not get full details of the properties so acquired by the first defendant, he reserves his right to file a separate suit for partition in respect of those properties or to include them in this suit after full particulars of the same were obtained. The second defendant is now join hands with the first defendant, in order to defeat the plaintiff of his legitimate share therein, the defendants are trying to alienate the suit properties to other persons. Coming to know about the same, the plaintiff had published a notice in a vernacular daily(Malai Murasu), dated 19. 1986 warning the first defendant not to sell the suit property and also issued a notice dated 20.9.1986 to one Mahadeviah, the prospective purchaser of the first defendant. In spite of the said notices, the first defendant is trying to sell the suit property. There was a mediation took place between the plaintiff and the first defendant on 9. 1986 before the Panchayatdars to effect a partition of the suit properties, but it ended in vain. Hence the suit for partition of 4/9th share in the plaint schedule property and for delivery of possession and for mesne profits. 3. The defendants in their joint written statement would contend that the plaintiff, first defendant and their father never constituted a Hindu Joint Family. The suit properties are not the ancestral joint family properties. C.Muniappa Chetti, the father of the plaintiff and the first defendant had no ancestral property. The said C.Muniappa Chetti was a weaver by profession and with his earning in the profession, he had purchased house site in Hosur Village in S.No.6/1A/1A/A4 in August 1969 for a sale consideration of Rs.25/-. With his own money, the said Muniappa Chetti had constructed country tiled house bearing door Nos.2 and 3. The said houses were the self acquired properties of the said Muniappa Chetti. With his own money, the said Muniappa Chetti had constructed country tiled house bearing door Nos.2 and 3. The said houses were the self acquired properties of the said Muniappa Chetti. Even in the year 1961, the plaintiff, first defendant and their father C.Muniappa Chetti started living separately. The first defendant is doing his business in textiles at Bangalore. C.Muniappa Chetti was doing his own business at Hosur. The plaintiff insisted for partition, even though there was no ancestral properties in their name. As per the advice of Panchayatdars, a partition deed was executed on 27. 1974 between the plaintiff, first defendant and their father C.Muniappa Chetti. The said houses bearing door Nos. 2 and 3 were self acquired properties of the said C.Muniappa Chetti, they were allotted to C.Muniappa. It was agreed in the partition deed that C.Muniappa and his wife can deal with the said house property as they like. In the said partition, the plaintiff was given Rs.500/-in lieu of his share in the ancestral property and the first defendant was given Rs.500/-in lieu of his share in the ancestral property. It was made clear in the partition deed that the properties acquired by each of plaintiff, first defendant and the said Muniappa, prior to partition were his own and that each of them can acquire more properties. It was also made clear in the said partition deed neither the plaintiff nor first defendant had any right in the suit door Nos.2 and 3. When the facts are as above as apparent from the partition deed to which the plaintiff is a party, it is false and untenable for the plaintiff to contend that the registered deed dated 27. 1974 was not a partition deed and that the suit property was left to the father C.Muniappa Chetti for his residence during his life time and the first defendant alone had left the family, after taking Rs.500/- from the co-sharers and that the plaintiff was not given any property or any share. The plaintiff is bound by the said partition deed and he cannot question the same. The plaintiff has no right in the suit properties. C.Muniappa Chetti, the father of the plaintiff and the first defendant died on 18. 1978. The plaintiff is bound by the said partition deed and he cannot question the same. The plaintiff has no right in the suit properties. C.Muniappa Chetti, the father of the plaintiff and the first defendant died on 18. 1978. Even during his life time, the first defendant altered the said houses door Nos.2 and 3 by removing the mud wall and erected brick wall with cement plastering and improved them and altered door No.2 into door Nos.2,2-A,2-B, and 2-C. For the above purpose, the first defendant spent about Rs.30,000/-. C.Muniappa was in sound disposing state of mind, of his own accord and voluntarily executed an unregistered Will on 14. 1977 bequeathing his interest in the suit property in favor of the first defendant. Under the said Will, the said Muniappa bequeathed his other properties also in favour of the first defendant. As such it is false and untenable to contend that the plaintiff became entitled to 4/9th share or 1/3rd share in the suit properties. In the house bearing door No.2, the second defendant has been living and is being looked after and maintained by first defendant. Even Muniappa Chetti was also looked after and maintained by the first defendant, when he was alive. That is why out of love and affection, Muniappa Chetti had bequeathed his properties under the said Will in favour of the first defendant. The first defendant is enjoying the suit house by letting into tenants. The second defendant is in occupation of house bearing door No.2 and the first defendant is paying tax to the suit houses. The first defendant has acquired other properties also in his own capacity and has gifted a house property on 110. 1986 in favour of the plaintiff and the plaintiff has accepted the said gift and living in the said house and has been paying tax for the said house after the gift in his favour. The title deed in favour of the first defendant for the said house and the gift deed were handed over to the plaintiff and they are with the plaintiff. Even before 1974, the plaintiff, the first defendant and their father were living separately for convenience sake but the plaintiff and the first defendant were in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit property. There was no ancestral joint family funds. Even before 1974, the plaintiff, the first defendant and their father were living separately for convenience sake but the plaintiff and the first defendant were in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit property. There was no ancestral joint family funds. Under such circumstances, it is deliberately false and imaginary to allege that with the help of ancestral joint family funds, the first defendant acquired vast properties at Bangalore and that they are also joint family properties. The first defendant by his own effort and hard work and from his own business acquired properties at Bangalore. The plaintiff has absolutely no right in any of the properties acquired by the first defendant at Bangalore or elsewhere and the plaintiff cannot claim any share therein in the suit or in a separate suit as alleged by him. The first defendant is not making any attempt to alienate his property. The paper publication and the registered notice contained false allegations. Before the first defendant could send a suitable reply , the plaintiff has filed the suit and suppressing the facts, had obtained an exparte order of injunction. The Court fee paid is not correct. The plaintiff is not entitled to any relief in the suit and the suit is liable to be dismissed. 4. On the above pleadings, the learned trial Judge had framed as many as six issues for trial. The plaintiff was examined as P.W.1, and exhibited Ex A1 partition deed dated 27. 1974. On the side of the defendants D.W. 1 to D.W. 3 were examined and Exs B1 to B13 were marked. 5. After scanning the evidence, and after taking into consideration, both oral and documentary evidence, the learned trial Judge has come to a conclusion that the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief in the suit and accordingly dismissed the suit with costs which necessitated the plaintiff to approach this Court by way of this appeal. 6. The following points arose for determination in this appeal a) Whether the partition deed dated 27. 1974 (Ex A1) entered into between the father of the plaintiff and the first defendant viz., C.Muniappa Chetti, the plaintiff H.M.Chandrasekaran and the first defendant H.M.Sree Kandaiah is valid and binding on the parties? b)Whether the Will dated 14. 6. The following points arose for determination in this appeal a) Whether the partition deed dated 27. 1974 (Ex A1) entered into between the father of the plaintiff and the first defendant viz., C.Muniappa Chetti, the plaintiff H.M.Chandrasekaran and the first defendant H.M.Sree Kandaiah is valid and binding on the parties? b)Whether the Will dated 14. 1977 (Ex B13) has been proved in accordance with law and that the first defendant had derived any title in respect of the plaint schedule property under the said Will? c) Whether the Judgment and decree of the learned Trial Judge in O.S.No.163 of 1986 on the file of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Krishnagiri is liable to be set aside for the reasons stated in the memorandum of appeal? 7. Point No.1 : Even though the plaintiff would contend that Ex A1 is not a partition deed entered into between his father C.Muniappa Chetti and his sons viz., the plaintiff and the first defendant,in the cross examination as P.W.1(dated 211. 1994) he would admit that in Ex A1 , he has admitted that neither he nor the first defendant had any right or title in respect of the property scheduled to Ex A1 which is the plaint schedule property. He would admit that as per the recitals in Ex A1, the sharers cannot claim any right over the shares of other co-sharers. A reading of Ex A1 Will would go to show that the property scheduled to Ex A1 viz., house in S.No.6/1-A/1-A/1-A4 with a land measuring 23 feet east west and 16 ½ feet north south was allotted to C.Muniappa Chetti, the father of the plaintiff and the first defendant and in lieu of their due shares, the first defendant and the plaintiff each were given Rs.500/-. The above said recitals as to the effect that both the first defendant and the plaintiff were given Rs.500/-each towards their respective shares in ExA1 is also admitted by P.W.1 in the cross examination. But he would contend that as per the recitals in Ex A1, he was not given Rs.500/- but he would admit that he has not preferred any complaint as regards to the non payment of Rs.500/-as per the recitals in Ex A1 to any panchayatdars or to any authorities. Further he would categorically admit at page 5 of his deposition(dated 211. Further he would categorically admit at page 5 of his deposition(dated 211. 1994 last line) that Ex A1 is a partition deed and it is not a relinquishment deed. In fact Ex A1 was produced only by the plaintiff. Ex A1 is in Telegu.The Tamil translation copy of Ex A1 would go to show that all parties to Ex A1 viz., C.Muniappa Chetti, the first defendant and the plaintiff have signed in Ex A1 document. Even in the present suit, the plaintiff has not asked for any relief to set aside Ex A1 on the ground of coercion, fraud or misrepresentation etc., Under such circumstances, the learned trial Judge , while answering issue No.1 has come to a right conclusion that Ex A1 deed dated 27. 1974 is a partition deed entered into between C. Muniappa, the father and his sons viz., the plaintiff and the first defendant respectively. Point No.1 is answered accordingly. 8.Point No.2: The first defendant in his written statement would raise a defence that the suit property was bequeathed by his father C.Muniappa, who got the same under Ex A1 in his favour, under Ex B13 Will dated 14. 1977. Even though Ex B13 is an unregistered Will, to prove the same, the first defendant had examined D.W.3, one of the attestors to Ex B13, who would depose that testator under Ex B13 viz., C.Muniappa Chetti with a lawyer had prepared the Will while in a sound disposing state of mind and signed in his as well as other attestors presence and that he and the other attestors had signed in the presence of the testator in Ex B13 Will. As per Section 68 of the Evidence Act, the Will Ex B13 has been proved by the first defendant. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would admit that apart from the property scheduled to the plaint, there are also other properties belonging to the family at Bangalore. The first defendant in his written statement would state that he had purchased the property and had settled the same in favour of the plaintiff as per the Settlement Deed dated 110. 1986. But P.W.1 in the cross examination, even though, would claim that he had only purchased the said property under the sale deed dated 110. 1986, he would later admit that as per the recitals in the said document dated 110. 1986. But P.W.1 in the cross examination, even though, would claim that he had only purchased the said property under the sale deed dated 110. 1986, he would later admit that as per the recitals in the said document dated 110. 1986, the property was purchased only by the first defendant Sree Kandaiah. Under such circumstances, it cannot be said that C.Muniappa Chetti, the father of the plaintiff and the first defendant has no right to bequeath the suit property in favour of the first defendant under Ex B13 Will. There is absolutely no material placed before the trial Court to show that Ex B13 Will is a forged or concocted document and created for the purpose of the case. Hence, I hold on Point No.2 that under Ex B13, the suit property has been bequeathed by the father of the plaintiff as well as the first defendant who got the same under Ex A1 in favour of the first defendant. Point No.2 is answered accordingly. 10. Point No.3: In view of my discussion and finding in the earlier paragraphs, I do not find any reason to interfere with the well considered findings of the learned trial Judge in O.S.No.163 of 1986 on the file of Court of Subordinate Judge, Krishnagiri. Point No.3 is answered accordingly. 11. In fine, the appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed confirming the Decree and Judgment of the learned trial Judge in O.S.No.163 of 1986 on the file of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Krishnagiri. No costs.