In second appeals challenging a decree confirming suit property rights, the High Court rejected the plaintiff's claim. It held that the father had already settled, bequeathed, or alienated the properties before his death. Consequently, the mother's decree for rights post-lifetime could not vest title in the plaintiff. The appeals were dismissed.
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 : 20.12.2016 PRONOUNCED ON : 11.01.2017 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAVINDRAN Second Appeal Nos.153 and 154 of 2011 and M.P.Nos.1 and 1 of 2011 Muniammal ... Appellant in both Appeals/Plaintiff Versus 1.Subaramanian 2.Srirangammal (deceased) 3.Kamatchi Ammal ... Respondents in S.A.153/2011 /Defendants (3rd respondent recorded as LR of the deceased 2nd respondent vide order of the Court dated 19.10.2016 made in Memo USR No.2206 dated 16.03.2012 in S.A.No.153 of 2011) 1.Srirangammal (deceased) 2.Kamatchi Ammal 3.Subramanian ... Respondents in S.A.154/2011 /Defendants (2nd respondent recorded as LR of the deceased 1st respondent vide order of the Court dated 19.10.2016 made in Memo USR No.2205 dated 16.03.2012 in S.A.No.154 of 2011)
Second Appeal No.153 of 2011 filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code against the Judgment and Decree dated 26.08.2010 made in A.S.No.35 of 2009 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Kanchipuram, Kanchipuram District, reversing the judgment and decree dated 31.12.2008 made in O.S.No.61 of 2001 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Uthiramerur.
Second Appeal No.154 of 2011 filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code against the Judgment and Decree dated 26.08.2010 made in Cross Appeal No.42 of 2009 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Kanchipuram, Kanchipuram District, reversing
the judgment and decree dated 31.12.2008 made in O.S.No.61 of 2001 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Uthiramerur.
For Appellant in both appeals : Mr.N.Nagu Sah
For Respondent-1 in S.A.153/2011 and For Respondent-3 in S.A.154/2011 : Mr.K.Govi Ganesan For Respondent 3 in S.A.153/2011 and For Respondent 2 in S.A.154/2011 : Mr.N.Nityanandan
COMMON JUDGMENT
S.A.No.153/2011:
Challenge in this appeal is made by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 26.08.2010 passed in A.S.No.35 of 2009 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Kanchipuram, reversing the judgment and decree dated 31.12.2008 passed in O.S.No.61 of 2001 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Uthiramerur.
Challenge in this appeal is made by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 26.08.2010 passed in Cross Appeal No.42 of 2009 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Kanchipuram, reversing the judgment and decree dated 31.12.2008 passed in O.S.No.61 of 2001 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Uthiramerur.
3.The suit has been laid by the plaintiff for possession.
4.The Second Appeals have been admitted and the following substantial question of law is formulated for consideration in these Second Appeals :-
"Whether the judgment and decree of the first Appellate Court are based on presumptions, perverse findings and against the evidence on record and also against the principles of law pertaining to the case ? "
the custody of the sale deeds. It could therefore be seen that the suit properties originally belonged to Thangavel.
the same has been marked as Ex.B10. Pending O.S.No.668 of 1990, which was decreed on 06.03.1997, it is found that Thangavel had died and accordingly, the plaintiff has been impleaded as the 3rd defendant in the said suit as the legal heir of Thangavel. It is also found that Srirangammal, who is a party in O.S.No.668 of 1990 has also taken out an application to set aside the ex parte decree. However, the same did not yield any result and it could therefore be seen that the decree passed in O.S.No.668 of 1990 has become final declaring the rights of Ramu Ammal in respect of the entitlement of the properties belonging to Thangavel after his lifetime. Ramu Ammal has sought the relief of declaration in O.S.No.668 of 1990 that she is entitled to the suit properties after the lifetime of her husband Thangavel. On the other hand, as seen earlier, even on 14.10.1966, much prior to the institution of O.S.No.471 of 1967 by Ramu Ammal against Thangavel and Srirangammal, Thangavel had settled items 1 and 2 of the suit properties in favour of Srirangammal.
Srirangammal,Kamatchi Ammal and one Mani,as adverted to earlier, the case of the plaintiff that Ramu Ammal had obtained title to the suit properties after the death of Thangavel, by virtue of the decree passed in O.S.No.668 of 1990 and accordingly, after the death of Ramu Ammal, the plaintiff had become the owner of the suit properties, as such cannot be accepted.
absolutely after his lifetime, as such cannot be countenanced in any manner. It has not been established that Srirangammal was a party to the panchayat proceedings. If at all any panchayat had been held and a decision had been taken therein as put forth by the plaintiff, the true owner of the suit properties viz., items 1 & 2 of the suit properties, being Srirangammal, she should have agreed to the decision of the panchayat. When the same is not established, when Srirangammal was not a party to the panchayat proceedings, and the only witness examined to prove the panchayat, viz., PW.2 does not know even the name of Srirangammal, it could be seen that Srirangammal is not a party to the alleged panchayat proceedings. Further as found earlier, if really a panchayat had been convened and a decision had been taken therein as claimed by the plaintiff, the same would have been put in black and white and accordingly, placed before the court concerned for recording the same and accordingly, an appropriate decree would have been obtained from the Court in O.S.No. 471 of 1967. On the other hand, when it is found that the suit laid by Ramu Ammal in O.S.No. 471 of 1967 claiming title to the suit properties and also 1/2 share in the suit properties had come to be dismissed, the plea of the panchayat put forth by the plaintiff cannot be accepted in any manner. Further, when it is found that items 1 & 2 of the suit properties are not owned by Thangavel, the plea that Thangavel had agreed to Ramu Ammal taking the suit properties absolutely after his lifetime, as such cannot be believed. It has also not been established by the plaintiff that pursuant to the panchayat decision, Thangavel had been given the proceeds of the suit properties to Ramu Ammal as per the decision of the panchayat. With reference to the above case of the plaintiff, there is NIL evidence. Even as per the case of the plaintiff, only for three years thereafter, Thangavel had given the proceeds and subsequently stopped in giving the same and consequently, Ramu Ammal left the suit village and came to live with the plaintiff. Even the above case of the plaintiff that Thangavel had given the proceeds for three years has not been established by acceptable and reliable evidence. Therefore, it could be seen that the plea of panchayat put forth by the plaintiff has not been established in any manner. That apart, it has also been admitted by PW.2 that it is true that the party to the panchayat cannot agree to convey title to the properties not belonging to him. In such view of the matter, when it is found that even prior to the institution of O.S.No.471 of 1967, Thangavel had already settled items 1 and 2 of the suit properties in favour of Srirangammal, the plea put forth by the plaintiff that he had agreed that Ramu Ammal should take the said properties after his lifetime in the panchayat, as such cannot be believed and accepted in any manner. Cumulatively, it could be seen that the panchayat plea projected by the plaintiff is found to be not true and accordingly, it could be seen that the plaintiff is
unable to place reliable evidence to sustain the said plea. For the reasons aforesaid stated, the evidence of PW.2 cannot be safely relied upon to uphold the plea of panchayat.
LRs.). The principles of law outlined in the above decisions are taken into consideration and followed as applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case at hand.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the judgment and decree of the first Appellate Court are based on presumptions, perverse findings, and against the evidence on record?
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim title to the suit properties based on a decree granted to her mother after the death of the plaintiff's father?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Raj Kumar vs. Sardari Lal and othersFollowed¶34
(2004) 2 SCC 601 (Raj Kumar ..vs.. Sardari Lal and others) · Who else cites this
Jehal Tanti and others vs. Nageshwar Singh (dead) through LRs.Followed¶34
(2013) 14 SCC 689 (Jehal Tanti and others ..vs.. Nageshwar Singh (dead) through LRs.) · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Muniammal
Subaramanian
Srirangammal
Kamatchi Ammal
T. Ravindran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
