In this second appeal, the High Court dismissed the challenge against the first appellate court's decree. The court upheld the finding that suit properties were self-acquired by the vendor and the respondent vendor was estopped by a prior partition deed from claiming joint family status.
Second appeal dismissed; no order as to 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: 04.10.2019 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN S.A.No.182 of 2014 and M.P.No.1 of 2014
M.Ramasamy ..Appellant
Vs.
Rep. by his Power Agent Vasantha
PRAYER: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C., to set aside the judgment and decree of the learned Fast Track Court cum Additional District Judge, Namakkal, dated 10.06.2011 in A.S.No.23 of 2002, reversing the judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Munsif, Namakkal, dated 27.02.2002 in O.S.No.436 of 2000.
For Appellant : Mr.R.Neelakandan
For Respondents: Mr.P.Valliappan
J U D G M E N T
The 1st defendant in O.S.No.436 of 2000 who was successful in getting the suit filed by the plaintiff for declaration and injunction, dismissed upon its reversal by the lower appellate Court has come up with this second appeal.
The suit properties belonged to Muthusamy Gounder by virtue of his purchase on 12.08.1968. It is pleaded that the said Muthusamy Gounder got married and went to Malaysia along with his wife Chellammal and only male child viz., the 2nd defendant Sengodan. He was in Malaysia till 1954 where he begot two sons namely Sholi and 5th defendant Kaliannan and one daughter
Veerammal, 7th defendanat. The said Muthusamy Gounder returned India in the year 1954 and purchased a house and certain agricultural lands in Kalappanayakkanpatti village and again went back to Malaysia and returned in 1957. Thereafter, he purchased the suit property on 12.08.1968 out of his own income. On 26.10.1973, the said Muthusamy Gounder settled the suit properties to his grandson, through the 5th defendant Kaliannan namely Mani @ Balasubramanian, appointing his wife Chellammal as his guardian. The settlee namely Mani @ Balasubramanian died on 12.01.1977 leaving behind his mother Pappathi, the 6th defendant in the suit as his only legal heir. The plaintiff purchased the suit property from the said Pappathi under a Sale Deed dated 26.11.1993. Therefore, the plaintiff would seek a declaration of title and permanent injunction.
allowed the appeal and granted a decree for declaration and injunction. The lower appellate Court also took notice of the fact that at a partition in the family of the defendants under Ex.A16 dated 20.01.1979, the suit property was not included. It was also noticed that the partition Deed contains a specific recital stating that there are no other properties to be divided between the parties and if any property is found, it will be treated as the property of a person in whose name it stands. The recital was taken to have the effect of estoppal against the 1st defendant who is the party to the partition Deed Ex.A16 by the lower appellate Court. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court in decreeing the suit, the 1st defendant had filed the above second appeal.
also not denied. The fact that the 6th defendant/ the mother is the sole heir of Mani @ Balasubramanian is also admitted. The only denial according to Mr.P.Valliappan, is the purchase being pending to the partition suit and the partition suit having been decreed, the plaintiff cannot claim any title. The lower appellate Court on the consideration of the evidence on record concluded that the suit property is self acquired property of Muthusamy Gounder. The fact that the Muthusamy Gounder went to Malaysia, earned money, came back to India and purchased a house and agricultural lands in Kalappanayakkanpatti village is not disputed. The 1st defendant has not produced any evidence, much less any acceptable evidence to show that Muthusamy Gounder had ancestral properties and it was out of the income from the suit property which formed the nucleus, the suit properties were purchased.
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
vum To
Copy to: The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court,Madras.
+2ccs to Mr.P.Valliappan , Advocate SR.No. 855+65
S.A.No.182 of 2014 and M.P.No.1 of 2014 A.SK(11/09/2020)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the first appellate Court was justified in decreeing the suit despite the plaintiffs alleged failure to prove title over the suit property.
Whether the plaintiff is estopped from claiming title once the vendees were signatories to a partition deed excluding the property.
Whether findings of fact regarding self-acquired property and estoppel can be disturbed in a second appeal.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
M. Ramasamy
N. Rajan
R. Subramanian
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
