A property dispute concerned whether a family manager's compromise bound his sons and whether a competing settlement deed conveyed title. The court upheld the compromise as binding and the settlement deed as invalid, confirmed the declaration and permanent injunction, and dismissed the second appeal with costs.
Costs awarded on dismissal of the second appeal.
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 : 26.03.2021
PRONOUNCED ON : 26.04.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAVINDRAN
S.A.No.151 of 2008
Vs.
Memo recorded vide order of Court dated 24.10.2017 that appellants 1 to 3 are recorded as Lrs of the deceased R2.
Prayer :- Second Appeal has been filed under Section 100 of CPC against the Judgement and Decree in A.S. No.34/1984 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Tirupattur dated 29.06.2001 in confirming the judgment and decree in O.S.No.199/1977 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Tirupattur and dated 10.01.1984.
For Appellants : Mr. V. Raghavachari For Respondents For R1 : Mr. Krishna Ravindran R2 : Died (steps taken)
JUDGMENT
Challenge in this second appeal is made to the Judgement and Decree dated 29.06.2001 passed in A.S. No.34/1984 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Tirupattur, confirming the judgment and decree dated 10.01.1984 passed in O.S.No.199/1977 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Tirupattur.
2.For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rankings in the trial Court.
3.The defendants 2 to 4 in O.S.No.199 of 1997 are the appellants in this second appeal.
4.Suit for declaration and permanent injunction.
5.The case of the plaintiff, in brief, is that the plaintiff, the first defendant and one Govindasamy are the sons of the deceased Venkatesa Gounder and they constituted a Hindu Joint family and there was a partition in the year 1964 and in that partition 1.79 acre in Survey No.178/3 and 0.23 1/2 cents in Survey No.88/7 of the suit village were allotted to the share of the plaintiff beside the other properties and subsequent to the same, the plaintiff has been in the possession and enjoyment of the abovesaid allotted properties and as the abovesaid properties had been purchased in the name of the plaintiff's father and mother out of the income derived from the ancestral properties and accordingly the abovesaid properties had been treated as the joint family properties along with the other properties and therefore, been the subject matter of the partition effected in 1964. The plaintiff issued a notice to the first defendant, Venkatesan and Govindasamy on 08.01.1974 and on 15.10.1974 the first defendant, Venkatesa Gounder and Govindasamy sent a reply setting forth that the entire extent in Survey No.178/3 and 88/7 were allotted to the share of the first defendant Tirupatti Gounder. On account of the family disputes regarding the construction of the rice mill by the plaintiff alone, Venkatesa Gounder and Mangai Ammal had created a false settlement deed qua the abovesaid survey numbers in favour of the defendants 2 to 4 and accordingly they had attempted to interfere with the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of the allotted properties and hence the plaintiff had laid a suit in O.S.No.556/75 against the defendants Venkatesa Gounder, Mangai Ammal and Govindasamy on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tirupattur for declaration and permanent injunction. In that suit, all the defendants engaged a lawyer and filed the written statement. The written statement of the third respondent, i.e. Tirupati Gounder, had been adopted by the other defendants. In the written statement it has been categorically stated that Survey Nos.178/3 and 88/7 have been allotted to the share of the first defendant in the family partition and thereafter Venkatesa Gounder and Mangai Ammal had no right to execute the settlement deed inrespect of the abovesaid survey numbers in favour of the defendants 2 to 4. The plaintiff and the defendants in O.S. No.556/75 had accepted the panchayat decision to allot 1.89 acres in survey No.178/3 to the plaintiff and accordingly the parties had chosen to compromise the abovesaid suit and following the same, both the plaintiff and the first defendant
herein had filed the compromise petition praying that the suit may be decreed in terms of the compromise and accordingly an extent of 1.89 acres in survey No.178/3 had been given to the plaintiff and the compromise decree was passed on 10.12.1976. Venkatesa Gounder died on 11.04.1977. The defendants are living as joint family and the compromise effected in O.S. No.556/75 had been signed by the first defendant as the manager of the joint family and therefore, the same is binding on the defendant 2 to 4 and therefore, the defendant 2 to 4 are estopped to contend that they are not bound by the compromise recorded in O.S. No.556/75. After the demise of Venkatesa Gounder, the plaintiff demanded a share in the cash as well as promissory notes left by Venkatesa Gounder and also with reference to the mid portion of the coconut garden in survey No.141/5 which was alloted to Venkatesa Gounder to be enjoyed till his life time and due to the same, the defendants have now joined together and endeavouring to disturb the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of the suit property by committing tresspass and hence according to the plaintiff, he has been necessitated to lay the suit against the defendants for appropriate reliefs.
8.In support of the plaintiff's case, PWs.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A17 were marked. On the side of the defendants, DWs.1 to 3 were examined and Exs. B1 to B3 were marked.
following substantial questions of law were formulated for consideration.
and 2.08 acre in Survey No.88/77 had been allotted to the first defendant and it is only the first defendant who has been in the possession and enjoyment of the same and also would put forth the case that apprehending that the first defendant may not give the abovesaid properties to his sons contended that, Venkatesa Gounder and Mangai Ammal had settled the abovesaid properties in favour of the defendants 2 to 4 by way of the settlement deed dated 17.10.1975 marked as Ex.B3 and therefore, contended that the plaintiff is not entitled to seek the reliefs as sought for in the earlier suit.
from the first defendant and therefore, the compromise decree effected in O.S. No.556/75 is not binding upon the defendants and sought for the dismissal of the plaintiff's suit.
is found that in the earlier suit, the written statement filed by the first defendant had been adopted by his sons namely, the defendants 2 to 4 as well as his parents. It is also seen that the third defendant examined as D.W.2 has also admitted during the course of evidence that the signature had been obtained in the vakalat only by his father, the first defendant. It is found that in the reply notice Ex.A2, in the earlier suit in O.S. No.556/75 and in the present suit also the first defendant had pleaded that the entire extent in Survey No.178/3 had been allotted to his share. In such view of the matter, when according to the defendants as well as Venkatesa Gounder and Mangai Ammal in the earlier proceeding the entire extent in survey No.178/3 have been allotted to the first defendant, it does not stand to reason as to how thereafter Venkatesa Gounder and Mangai Ammal would be competent to settle the same in favour of the defendants 2 to 4 under Ex.B3. Therefore, the courts below are found to be justified in holding that the defendants are totally estopped in taking such inconsistent pleas, particularly, they having clearly admitted that the entire extent in survey No.178/3 had been allotted to the first defendant in 1964 partition.
placed on record worth acceptance to show that the first defendant was mentally weak and suffering from infirmity and the same had been taken advantage by the plaintiff to obtain the compromise petition filed in O.S. No.556/75. Considering the evidence of the first defendant as D.W.1 and the evidence of P.W.2, who has been the panchayat president, as rightly held by the courts below, the compromise petition filed in O.S. No.556/75 had been voluntarily effected by the plaintiff and the first defendant as per the advise of the panchayatars and Venkatesa Gounder with a view to solve the problems persisting between the plaintiff and the first defendant and in such view of the matter, the contention put forth by the defendants 2 to 4 as well as the first defendant that the plaintiff had taken advantage of the mental infirmity of the first defendant for obtaining the compromise petition, as such, cannot be believed and accepted and the same had been rightly dis believed by the courts below.
seen that the panchayatars had intervened and effected the compromise between them only in the presence of Venkatesa Gounder, the plaintiff, the first defendant and his sons, the defendants 2 to 4 and accordingly they had consented to the compromise effected. In such view of the matter, when as above pointed out, D.W.2 having admitted that the signature had been obtained only by his father in the earlier suit and also further admitted that the earlier suit in O.S. No.556/75 had been conducted on their behalf by their father, all put together, it is seen that the claim now put forth by the defendants 2 to 4 that they had been living independently and not jointly with the first defendant, their father, has been rightly disbelieved and rejected by the Courts below. As rightly held by the courts below, when the compromise had been effected between the parties at the intervention of the elders, particularly on the advise of the father Venkatesa Gounder and when it is noted that only to solve the disputes between the brothers one way or the other and for effecting peace in the family, resultantly, the compromise having been effected in the matter, the courts below are justified in holding that the first defendant had effected the compromise as the family manager only for the benefit of the family and accordingly he having also admitted the terms of the compromise before the court, in such view of the matter, the compromise decree recorded in O.S. No.556/75 had been rightly held to be effected by the first defendant as the family manager of the defendants 2 to 4 for family necessity and benefit and in such view of the matter, the compromise decree passed in O.S.No.556/75 is found to be wholly binding upon the defendants 2 to 4 as determined by the court below.
infavour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar (SSA)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
bga/sms
To:
The Section Officer,
V.R.Section, High Court, Madras.
+1cc to Mr.Krishna Ravindran, Advocate, S.R.No.25403
+1cc to Mr.V.Raghavachari, Advocate, S.R.No. 25161
S.A.No.151 of 2008
BS(CO)
GN(20/10/2021)
2 issues framed by the court
Did the compromise entered into by the father as joint family manager bind his sons despite their not signing it?
Could the grandfather validly settle property already allotted to the father in the family partition?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
T. Devaraj
T. Tamilarasan
T. Bhuvanendran
V. Krishnan
Tirupatti Gounder
T.RAVINDRAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
