In this Second Appeal, the appellant challenged the dismissal of her partition suit due to identity discrepancies in a Settlement Deed. The High Court found she failed to prove the deed was executed in her favour and dismissed the 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
DATED: 03.02.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.GOVINDARAJ
S.A.NO.645 OF 2017
Gunasundari
...Appellant / Plaintiff
Vs.
H.Pushpalingam
...Respondent / Defendant
PRAYER: The Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree dated 04.01.2017 in A.S.No.59 of 2016 on the file of the VII Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, confirming the judgment and decree dated 27.11.2015 in O.S.No.753 of 2012 on the file of the III Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.
For Appellant : Mr.K.Kannan For Respondent : Mr.R.Thiagarajan J U D G M E N T
The unsuccessful plaintiff has preferred the present Second Appeal challenging the concurrent findings of the Courts below.
20.07.2011, which was replied by the defendant on 02.08.2011, with untenable allegations. Hence, she was constrained to file a suit for partition.
contended that the property was executed in favour of his sister R.Gunasundari W/o. G.Raghupathi and her husband G.Raghupathi is also shown as witness to the execution of the Settlement Deed. The said R.Gunasundari is in enjoyment of the property without any encumbrance. If at all, it was a mistake, it could have been rectified by executing Rectification Deed, whereas, the plaintiff, whose name is Guna, created some false documents for the purpose of filing the suit and also created one marriage invitation that her sister name, is Sasikala. In the Legal Heirship certificate, the legal heirs were shows as (1) H.Sadaiamma, Wife of Harikrishnan (2) Guna, Daughter (married) (3) Gunasundari, Daughter (married) and (4) H.Pushpalingam, Son (married). As per the Legal Heirship certificate, the plaintiff's name is Guna and her sister's name is Gunasundari. The Settlement Deed was executed in favour of daughter, Gunasundari and son, Pushpalingam. The name, Sasikala in the marriage invitation is not connected to the suit. Therefore, the property is not liable for partition.
the Settlement Deed, Ex.A2 is the Death Certificate. There is no dispute over the same and Ex.A3 is Ration Card, in which, the name of the plaintiff was mentioned as Gunasundari, W/o.Nagooran, but, her age was mentioned as 37 years. Ex.A3, Ration Card, was issued between 2005-2009 and the address in the Ration Card is mentioned as No.41/51, Puthumanai Kuppam, 4th Street, Royapuram, Chennai - 600 081. In the Settlement Deed, which is marked as Ex.A1, the address of the Settlee is mentioned as Old.No.4, New No.7, Palaniamman Koil, North First Street, Chepauk. This Family Card was also issued during the same period i.e. 2005-2009. This Family Card was marked as Ex.A11, which tallys with the address in the Settlement Deed and in that, the age of Gunasundari was shown as 28 years. Therefore, at the time of execution of the Settlement Deed, dated 18.01.2006, Gunasundari W/o.Raghupathy, was residing at No.4/7, Palaniamman Koil North First Street, Chepauk, and not with the plaintiff, who is the wife of Nagooran. The age of the plaintiff during 2006 was 37 years and the age of the younger sister was 28 years. The fact that the the younger sister of the plaintiff is R.Gunasundari, W/o.G.Raghupathy, probabilise the evidence of D.W.3 that the Settlement Deed was executed in favour of the younger daughter of Harikrishnan and not in favour of the plaintiff.
mention the daughter's name wrongly. The Legal Heirship certificate shows that the first daughter is N.Guna. In that case, the father should have typed the name of the daughter as Guna and not as Gunasundari, more particularly, when another daughter by name Gunasundari is there. The husband of younger daughter attested the Settlement Deed. The fact that the husband of the younger daughter, namely, Gunasundari, attests the Settlement Deed, which leads to inference that the Settlement Deed was intended in favour of his wife and not in favour of the elder daughter of the Settlee. The issues have been analyed threadbare by both the Courts below and have given concrete findings on the evidence that the plaintiff is not entitled to claim partition in the property settled in favour of her younger sister.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS-IX)
// True Copy //
Sub Assistant Registrar
asi
To
+2ccs to Mr.R.Thiagarajan, Advocate Sr.No.6950
S.A.No.645 of 2017
JPL(CO) RVM(08/06/2022)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellant successfully established that the Settlement Deed dated 18.01.2006 was executed in her favour despite discrepancies in identity details.
Whether the concurrent findings by the Trial Court and First Appellate Court dismissing the partition suit should be allowed to stand in the Second Appeal.
Whether a substantial question of law arises out of the factual matrix which merits admission of the Second Appeal.
Gunasundari
H. Pushpalingam
M. Govindaraj
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
