Second Appeal against a decree charging a suit property with the value of gold jewellery alleged to be sold by the husband against his wife's will. The court held that lack of evidence by the appellant proved funds came from the jewellery sale, dismissing the appeal.
The Second Appeal was dismissed. 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 : 25.04.2017
CORAM:
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN
Second Appeal No.2002 of 1999
Meiyazhagan ... Appellant/Appellant/Defendant
Vs. Mythili ... Respondent/Respondent/Plaintiff
Second Appeal filed under Section 100 C.P.C. against the judgment and decree dated 29.08.1997 passed in A.S.No.51 of 1997 by the Additional Subordinate Judge, Nagapattinam, confirming the judgment and decree of the District Munsif Court, Nagapattinam, dated 13.09.1996 in O.S.No.214 of 1996.
For Appellant : Mr.R.Santhanam For Respondent : Mr.U.Karunakaran, for M/s.G.M.Mani Associates J U D G M E N T
The unsuccessful defendant before both the Courts below is the appellant herein. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 29.08.1997 passed in A.S.No.51 of 1997 by the Additional Subordinate Judge, Nagapattinam, confirming the judgment and decree of the District Munsif Court, Nagapattinam, dated 13.09.1996 in O.S.No.214 of 1996, the defendant has come up with the present Second Appeal.
set fire on her. In this regard, the respondent/plaintiff lodged a complaint in Vellipalayam Police Station and after enquiry by the Police, the defendant promised the plaintiff that he will return her jewels and also transfer the suit property in her name. To that effect, he also signed an Agreement dated 05.01.1992 to the plaintiff in the presence of the said Kunjithapadham and one Balasubramanian. Since the defendant failed to act as per the said Agreement, the plaintiff caused a legal notice to the defendant on 01.02.1992, to which, the defendant sent a reply notice on 05.02.1992. Hence, having no other alternative, the plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.214 of 1996, seeking to decree the suit for a sum of Rs.30,000/-, which is the value of the gold jewellery, with a charge on the suit property.
income of his father and the income earned by him by working as a Clerk in the Municipality. Hence, according to the learned counsel, the appellant/defendant had no sufficient means to purchase the suit property even by partially utilizing his own funds and it is only by selling the jewels of his wife, i.e. the respondent/plaintiff, he could purchase the suit property. Thus, he submitted that both the Courts below were right in decreeing the suit in favour of the respondent/plaintiff.
“(i) Whether an alternative relief can be granted in the absence of the specific mention of the date in the cause of action ?
(ii) Whether the Courts below are right and legal in granting the alternative relief when the same is barred by limitation?
(iii) Whether the Courts below are justified in granting the alternative relief while admitting the fact that a document was obtained by coercion and rejecting the main relief on that ground?
(iv) Whether the Courts below are justified in shifting the burden of proof from the plaintiff to the defendant in respect of the payment for purchase of the property?
(v) Whether the decree granted by the Courts below with a charge on the suit property is legal, when the document under which the main relief claimed was held to be obtained by coercion?
suit property in his name. Now, the dispute is with regard to the Agreement dated 05.01.1992 signed by the appellant/defendant in favour of the respondent/plaintiff. According to the appellant/defendant, the said Agreement was obtained from him by coercion, that too in the Police Station. It is seen that the respondent/plaintiff, who was examined as P.W.1 has admitted that the said Agreement was entered into between her and the appellant/defendant only in the Police Station. The Trial Court as also the First Appellate Court have concurrently held that Ex.A1 – Agreement entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant in the Police Station cannot be accepted, as it has been obtained from the defendant by means of coercion.
out of the proceeds of the sale of the plaintiff's jewellery. Also, the genuineness of P.W.2 cannot be questioned as the appellant/defendant has stated in his evidence that he has no enmity with P.W.2 and there is no need for P.W.2 to act against his interest.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether an alternative relief can be granted in the absence of a specific mention of the date in the cause of action.
Whether the Courts below were justified in granting alternative relief while admitting the document was obtained by coercion.
Whether the burden of proof shifted to the defendant regarding the source of funds for purchase of the property.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Meiyazhagan
Mythili
S. Vaidyanathan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
