In a second appeal regarding partition of immovable property, the Division Bench held that an oral gift of immovable property is invalid under Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act, thus dismissing the appeal and upholding the decree for partition.
The second appeal was dismissed with costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved On : 30.11.2016
Pronounced On : 05.12.2016
CORAM
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
Second Appeal No.1929 of 1991 and C.M.P.No.17299 of 1991
1.Gunasekaran 2.Minor Maheswari rep.by 1st appeallant .. Appellants/ Appellants/ 2nd and 3rd Defendant /vs/ Chellammal (deceased) ...Respondent/ Respondnt/ Plaintiff 1.Valliammai ...Respondent/ Respondent/ 1st Defendant 2.ThangaRaju 3.Krishnamoorthy .. Respondents / Respondents
Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree made in A.S.No.100 of 1986 dated 12.10.1990 on the file of the Sub Judge, Ariyalur, confirming the judgment and decree of the District Munsif, Perambalur in O.S.No.386 of 1983, dated 30.07.1986.
For Appellants :Mr.C.Vediappan for Mr.C.Selvaraju
For Respondents :No appearance
JUDGMENT
The short point involved in this second appeal is whether the alleged oral gift given by the plaintiff in favour of the first defendant is admissible in evidence?
On 03.08.1960 the suit property was divided among the plaintiff Sellammal and her two daughters Valliammi and Chinnapillai @ Chinnammal. Later, Chinnapillai @ Chinnammal relinquished her 1/3rd share in favour of her sister Valliammai,
who is the first defendant herein. While the plaintiff and the defendants' family were jointly enjoying the property till 1979, the first defendant has alienated the entire suit property by way of settlement deed to one Thangammal, who is none other the first defendant's daughter and one Gunasekaran, who is the husband of the Thangammal. Therefore, the plaint filed for partition seeking 1/3rd share in the suit property and mesne profits.
Sd/Asst.Registrar (CCC)
/true copy/
Sub Asst. Registrar
ari
To
S.A.No.1929 of 1991
GM (CO) kk 27/12
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an alleged oral gift of immovable property is admissible in evidence and legally valid?
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a partition of her 1/3rd share in the suit property despite the defendant's alienation?
2 provisions across 2 enactments
1.Gunasekaran
Minor Maheswari rep.by 1st appellant
Chellammal (deceased)
Valliammai
ThangaRaju
Krishnamoorthy
G.JAYACHANDRAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
