In a second appeal challenging a decree in a partition suit, the High Court upheld the lower courts finding that documents evidenced a partition between brothers. The Court found the appellant's contradiction regarding possession and titled rejected the appeal, dismissing the second appeal.
The second appeal failed and was dismissed with no 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
Dated: 19.12.2016
Coram:
The Honourable Mr.Justice M.M.SUNDRESH
S.A.No.965 of 2016
Haridass
S/o Periyanna Gounder,
residing at Gingee Taluk,
Seeyapundi Village. ... Appellant/Appellant/2 nd
Defendant
Vs.
1.Late Kasi Gounder(died),
S/o Late Kanna Gounder ...1st Respondent/1st
Respondent/Plaintiff
2.Mrs.Rajathi,
W/o Late Kasi Gounder
3.Mrs.Gandhimathi,
D/o Late Kasi Gounder
4.Mrs.Kaarthiga,
D/o Late Kasi Gounder
5.Ms.Anusha (Minor),
Rep. By Mrs.Rajathi,
D/o Late Kasi Gounder
6.Mrs.Dhanalakshmi,
W/o Late Kasi Gounder
All residing at Gingee Taluk, Mananthal Madura,
Seeyapundi Village.
... Respondents 2 to 6/Respondents
Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 C.P.C., to set
aside the judgment and decree dated 31.03.2016 made in
A.S.No.15 of 2006 on the file of Sub Court, Gingee, confirming
the judgment and decree dated 17.08.2005 made in O.S.No.42 of
2000 on the file of Additional District Munsif Court, Gingee.
For Appellant : Mr.Karianathan for M/s Nathan and Associates
JUDGMENT
The unsuccessful defendant No.2, who lost before the Courts below has filed the above second appeal raising the following substantial questions of law.
(1) Whether the Courts below are correct in granting injunction against the appellant when the appellant is in absolute possession of the suit property?
(2) Whether the sale transaction alleged to have taken place between Mr.Haridass and Late Kasi Gounder is valid when the suit property is not partitioned?
(3) Whether the Courts below are correct in holding that the respondents have got better title when the defendant/appellant himself cannot convey a valid title as the suit is jointly held by the legal heirs of Late Periyanna Gounder?
Exs.A7 and A8 sale deeds are also executed in the year 1993 by the appellant/defendant No.2 in favour of various third parties. These documents viz., Exs.A1, A7 and A8, spell out the factum of partition between the appellant and his brother viz., the first defendant. Therefore, it is not open to the appellant to contend contrary to the aforesaid fact. He is also aware of Ex.A1 as seen from his evidence. He did not dispute Exs.A7 and A8. Injunction follows title. The first respondent has filed patta to show his possession. This factum is also accepted by the appellant in his evidence. Thus, on an analysis of the documents and the oral testimony of the parties, this Court is of the view that the Courts below have correctly decreed the suit as prayed for. This Court does not find any substantial question of law, much less any question of law arising in this appeal for consideration. Accordingly, the second appeal fails and the same is dismissed. No costs.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS II)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
raa
To
1.The Subordinate Judge,
Gingee.
2.The Additional District Munsif,
Gingee.
+1cc to M/S.Nathan & Associates Sr.74643
S.A.No.965 of 2016
rsy[co]
srg 24/01/2017
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Courts below were correct in granting injunction against the appellant who is in absolute possession of the suit property?
Whether the sale transaction between the appellant and the deceased father is valid when the suit property was not partitioned?
Whether the respondents have a better title when the appellant cannot convey a valid title as the suit is jointly held?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Haridass
Mrs. Rajathi
M.M. Sundresh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
