Dismissed

Sathya v. Nagaraj

Madras HC12 Jul 2019SA/153/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Second appeal by minors challenging a sale of ancestral property by their father to a third party. The High Court held the sale was valid as it was for family welfare, involving minor co-nominees, and dismissed the appeal for failing to seek cancellation of the deed.

What did the court decide?

Second appeal dismissed; declaration of invalidity denied as plaintiffs failed to seek cancellation of the sale deed.

What the court decided

AI extract

Sathya Vs Nagaraj — Partition | Madras HC (2019)

¶16

The case of the plaintiffs, in brief, is that the first plaintiff is the wife and the plaintiffs 2 and 3 are the children of the second defendant and the plaint schedule property is the ancestral property of the second defendant and the plaintiffs 2 and 3 and the first plaintiff is also the joint family member and the plaintiffs are having title over the suit property and enjoying the same. While so, according to them on 20.09.2012, the first defendant came to the suit property and endeavoured to measure the same and the same was objected to by the first plaintiff and the first defendant had claimed that he had purchased the suit property from the second defendant and according to the plaintiff,the abovesaid sale transaction put forth by the first defendant is not valid and not binding upon the plaintiffs in any manner and further according to the plaintiff, after the marriage, the first plaintiff had been living with the second defendant, however, the second defendant is not in the habit of disclosing any matter to the plaintiff and the second defendant's family is a male dominated one and hence according to the plaintiffs, the sale transaction put forth by the first defendant is not known to the plaintiffs and according to the plaintiff, on verification of the copy of the sale deed from the Registrar's office, they came to know that the sale deed dated 26.03.2012 had come to be created by the first defendant under the false promise and false representation and also by using the force on the second defendant and hence according to the plaintiffs, the abovesaid sale deed is not valid and liable to be set aside and there is no family necessity for alienating the suit property in favour of the first defendant on the part of the second defendant and no permission had also been obtained from the court for the abovesaid alienation and the plaintiffs are in the possession of the suit property and accordingly, the plaintiffs are entitled to claim the share in the suit property as put forth in the plaint and hence according to the plaintiffs, they have been necessitated to lay the suit against the defendants for appropriate reliefs.

¶31

As rightly found by the first appellate court, it is found that the the impugned sale deed dated 26.03.2012 had been executed by the second defendant as the kartha of the joint family for himself and on behalf of the minor plaintiffs 2 and 3. The abovesaid fact is very well known to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have admitted that on verification of the abovesaid sale deed, they had come to know about the sale transaction. In such view of the matter, when Ex.A2/B2 sale deed is found to be executed by the second defendant as the kartha of the joint family and on behalf of the minor plaintiffs 2 and 3 and the minor plaintiffs 2 and 3 are the eo-naminee parties to the abovesaid sale transaction, in such view of the matter, the plaintiffs should have endeavoured to cancel the abovesaid sale deed by paying the requisite court fees under Section 40 of the Tamilnadu Court Fee Act and when the plaintiffs had failed to seek the cancellation of the same and only sought the relief of declaration that the abovesaid sale deed is invalid, the same would not suffice, accordingly, it is seen that on the abovesaid ground alone, the plaintiffs cannot be allowed to seek the relief of declaration as prayed for by them and I had an occasion to consider the abovesaid position of law in the decision reported in (2017) 1 MLJ 153 (M. Panneerselvam vs. Susseela and others) and held that the relief of declaration sought for by the plaintiff therein could not be taken as the prayer for the cancellation of the sale deed wherein the minor plaintiffs are the eo-nominee parties and for arriving at the abovesaid determination, the decisions reported in (1996) 1 CTC 661 ( P.B. Ramjee and two others vs. P.B. Lakshmanaswamy Naidu and ten others), AIR 1956 MAD 670 : (1956) 2 MLJ 1411 ( Sankaranarayana Pillai vs. Kandasamipillai ) and (1976) 2 MLJ 326 ( V.Nataraja Iyer and others vs. Arunachalam and Others) were taken into consideration and accordingly held that the relief of declaration sought for by the plaintiff therein could not be taken as a prayer seeking for the cancellation of the impugned sale deed and thereby dismissed the plaintiff's suit in the abovesaid case. The position of law has been culled out in the abovesaid decision as follows:

¶47

had also been mentioned in Ex.A2/B2 sale deed. The first appellate court is justified in holding that meeting the family expenses and the welfare of the family, as mentioned in the abovesaid sale deed, would also include the interest of the minors. It is not the case of the plaintiffs that the second defendant had been indulging in illegal activities and not looking after the family and leading a wayward life and therefore, the sale deed effected by him is not for legal necessity. Very vaguely they have put forth the plea that Ex.A2/B2 has not been executed for legal necessity. However, considering the facts, as determined by the first appellate court, that the plaintiffs and the second defendant are living together and when Ex.A2/B2 sale deed is found to have been executed only for the welfare of the family which includes the welfare of the minors and when in the decisions relied upon by the plaintiffs reported in (2013) 9 Supreme Court Cases 419 (Rohit Chauhan vs. Surinder Singh and others) and 2009 (5) CTC 170 (M.Yogendra and others vs. N.Leelamma and others), it has been held that when the sale transaction is effected by the kartha of the family for any legal necessity, the same is binding upon the minors as the kartha is entitled to alienate the suit property belonging to the joint family for legal necessity and in such view of the matter, when there is no material to hold that the relationship between the plaintiffs and the second defendant has become estranged and isolated in any manner and the second defendant had been indulging in immoral and illegal activities and not looking after the family, in such view of the matter, considering the entire evidence placed in this matter, it is found that the first appellate court is wholly justified in coming to the conclusion that only for the welfare of the minors and for the legal necessity, the suit property had come to be alienated by the second defendant in favour of the first defendant and accordingly, the suit property had been entrusted to the possession and enjoyment of the first defendant and hence, it is found that the first defendant is a bonafide purchaser of the suit property and his failure to enter into the witness box, by itself, would not in any manner affect his case considering the evidence of the subsequent purchaser D.W.1 as well as the facts and circumstances of the case in entirety. As abovenoted, the claim of the plaintiffs that the first defendant had obtained the abovesaid sale deed based on false promise and false representation using force, etc., had not been substantiated by the plaintiffs with acceptable materials and furthermore, the second defendant having not come forward challenging the case of the first defendant in any manner and top of it, the plaintiffs and the second defendant are found to be living under same roof, as rightly contended by the defendant's counsel, the plaintiffs cannot be allowed to feign ignorance of the abovesaid sale transaction and therefore, it is evident that the abovesaid sale deed is valid and binding upon the plaintiffs and in such view of

Sathya v. Nagaraj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Case details

Similar cases

Sree Jaishna Briquettes Vs J.Jayachitra

S.Suresh Vs N.Rammal

Masjid-E-Mamoor Committee Vs G.Mohanasundaram

Deivanai Vs v.Satayanarayana Chetty

Kandasamy, Vs Dhanasekaran

Sathya v. Nagaraj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Case details

Similar cases

Sree Jaishna Briquettes Vs J.Jayachitra

S.Suresh Vs N.Rammal

Masjid-E-Mamoor Committee Vs G.Mohanasundaram

Deivanai Vs v.Satayanarayana Chetty

Kandasamy, Vs Dhanasekaran

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Coram

The Commissioner Vs Sathuvacheri Sengunthar