Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 3503 (MAD)

M. Raman v. R. Karupayi

2021-12-14

ABDUL QUDDHOSE

body2021
JUDGMENT : 1. This suit has been filed for declaration that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants 2 to 4 in any manner alienating / encumbering / mortgaging / altering the suit schedule mentioned property. 2. The plaintiff claims that only out of his self-earned funds, he purchased the suit schedule property in the name of R.Krishnan his predeceased son under the sale deed dated 26.03.1987 registered as document No.390 of 1987. The first defendant is the wife of the plaintiff, the second defendant is the wife of his predeceased son R.Krishnan and the third and fourth defendants are his grand-children born to his predeceased son R.Krishnan and K.Saraswathy, the second defendant. R.Krishnan, the predeceased son of the plaintiff was only 22 years, when the sale deed dated 26.03.1987 registered as document No.390 of 1997 was executed in his favour which is the subject matter of the suit. 3. The plaintiff has also stated in the plaint that he only performed the marriage of his elder son R.Krishnan and the second defendant on 20.01.1999. According to him, after the death of his elder son R.Krishnan, his legal heirs are not co-operating for family arrangements and the settlement of the properties in favour of the family members. According to the plaintiff, apart from the suit schedule property, there are other properties purchased by the plaintiff and one other property was also purchased in the name of the elder son R.Krishnan (predeceased) which the plaintiff does not want to interfere. Only for the purpose of allotting the properties to his wife and children equally, the plaintiff has filed this suit for declaration as the defendants are not co-operating for proper family arrangements between all of them. 4. All the defendants have been set exparte by this Court on 25.11.2021 and evidence has also been recorded by the learned Master on behalf of the plaintiff. 5. Before the learned Master, the plaintiff was examined as a witness PW1. In his deposition, the plaintiff has reiterated the contents of the plaint filed in support of C.S.No.686 of 2019 and prayed for a declaration and for permanent injunction decree. 5. Before the learned Master, the plaintiff was examined as a witness PW1. In his deposition, the plaintiff has reiterated the contents of the plaint filed in support of C.S.No.686 of 2019 and prayed for a declaration and for permanent injunction decree. Through PW1, the following documents were marked as exhibits: Exhibits Nature of Documents P1 Photocopy of the plaintiff’s Indian Bank Savings Bank Account Pass book extract from July, 1984 P2 Photocopy of the plaintiff State Bank of India Savings Bank Account Pass book extract from July 1984 P3 Photocopy of the Sale Deed in Doc.No.390 of 1987 dated 26.03.1987 P4 Photocopy of the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board allotment of Plot No.167 in favour of R.Krishnan dated 01.10.1991 P5 Photocopy of the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board allotment of Plot No.164 in favour of plaintiff dated 01.10.1991 P6 Photocopy of the No Objection Certificate issued by Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board in favour R.Krishnan Plot No.167 dated 24.11.1998 and 15.12.1998 P7 Photocopy of the Family Card issued to the plaintiff by Civil Supply and Consumer Protection department for the year 2005-2009. P8 Photocopy of the Demand Notice issued to the plaintiff by Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewerage Board (3 nos) from 04.07.2007 P9 Photocopy of the Electricity Service Connection card issued in favour of the plaintiff with 65B certificate P10 Photocopy of the Plaintiff’s son R.Krishnan Death Certificate issued by Greater Chennai Corporation dated 12.11.2010 mentioned in 65B Certificate P11 Photocopy of the plaintiff’s son R.Krishnan legal heirs certificate issued by Tahsildar Mambalam –Guindy Taluk dated 15.03.2013 P12 Plaintiff’s Aadhar Card dated 30.11.2013 6. As seen from the evidence available on record, it is clear that Mr.R.Krishnan, the predeceased son of the plaintiff was only 22 years, when the sale deed dated 26.03.1987 registered as document No.390 of 1987 registered as document No.390 of 1987 was executed in his favour which was marked as Ex.P3. 7. It is the case of the plaintiff that on 26.03.1987, the plaintiff was only supporting and maintaining his son R.Krishnan and he did not have any means to purchase the property. 7. It is the case of the plaintiff that on 26.03.1987, the plaintiff was only supporting and maintaining his son R.Krishnan and he did not have any means to purchase the property. The plaintiff has filed his Bank Account statement which has been marked as Ex.P1 & Ex.P2 to prove that he was having the means to purchase the property in the year 1987 which is the subject matter of the suit and the sale deed dated 26.03.1987 has been marked as Ex.P3. The plaintiff has also filed allotment letters issued by the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board for plot No.167 in favour of R.Krishnan his predeceased son on 01.10.1991 pertaining to another property purchased with the funds of the plaintiff in favour of R.Krishnan which has been marked as Ex.P4. Similarly, another property has been allotted by the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board for plot No.164 in favour of the plaintiff on 01.10.1991 which has been marked as Ex.P5. As seen from Ex.P6, the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board has issued No objection Certificate in favour of R.Krishnan, the predeceased son of the plaintiff for plot No.167 which is the other property purchased through the funds of the plaintiff in the name of R.Krishnan. 8. The family card issued to the plaintiff by Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection Department for the year 2005-09 marked as Ex.P6, Demand Notice issued to the plaintiff by Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board (3 nos) on 04.07.2001 marked as Ex.P8 and the electricity service connection is issued in favour of the plaintiff together with 65B certificate marked as Ex.P9 are all documents confirm that the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, even though the sale deed dated 26.03.1987 registered as document No.390 of 1987 marked as Ex.P3 stands in the name of his predeceased son R.Krishnan. 9. R.Krishnan, the son of the plaintiff died on 12.11.2010 as evidenced by his death certificate which has been marked as Ex.P10. Ex.P11 is the legal heirship certificate of R.Krishnan which reveals that the defendants are the only legal heirs. The Aadhar Card of the plaintiff dated 30.11.2013 has also been marked as Ex.P12 which confirms that the plaintiff is only in possession of the suit schedule property. 10. Ex.P11 is the legal heirship certificate of R.Krishnan which reveals that the defendants are the only legal heirs. The Aadhar Card of the plaintiff dated 30.11.2013 has also been marked as Ex.P12 which confirms that the plaintiff is only in possession of the suit schedule property. 10. After giving due consideration to the pleadings and the evidence available on record, this court is convinced that the plaintiff is entitled for the relief sought for in the plaint. Accordingly, the suit is decreed as prayed for with costs.