Dismissed

Rajaraman v. Nachiar Ammal

Madras HC25 Apr 2023SA/500/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a second appeal regarding a property dispute arising from a Will, the Court held that the division of properties was by structure not measurement. Consequently, the allowance of permanent injunction to co-owners was confirmed, and the appeal was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted; Second Appeal dismissed and lower decrees confirmed regarding permanent injunction.

Rajaraman Vs Nachiar Ammal — Succession and Inheritance | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

S.A.No.500 of 2001

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 25.04.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN

¶6

S.A.No.500 of 2001

¶7

Rajaraman ... Appellant Vs. 1.Nachiar Ammal 2.Loganathan ... Respondents

¶8

Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the Judgment and decree dated 14.09.2000 in A.S.No.4 of 2000 on the file of the Court of Additional District Judge, Pondicherry at Karaikal, confirming the Judgment and decree dated 23.04.1999 in O.S.No.14 of 1998 on the file of Court of Principal District Munsif at Karaikal.

¶9

For Appellant : Mr.T.Ganesan For Respondents : Mr.R.Sunil Kumar

¶10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ___________

¶11

__________ Page No 1 of 8_

¶12

S.A.No.500 of 2001

¶13

JUDGMENT

¶14

The defendant in O.S.No.14 of 1998 on the file of the Court of Principal District Munsif at Karaikal, who was the appellant in A.S.No.4 of 2000 on the file of the Court of Additional District Judge, Pondicherry at Karaikal, is the appellant before this Court.

¶15

This is an appeal, which arises against a suit presented by the plaintiffs/respondents herein seeking for recovery of possession of 'A'-Schedule Property and for grant of permanent injunction with respect to the 'B'-Schedule Property and for mesne profits of Rs.50/- per month from the date of plaint till the date of actual delivery.

¶16

The Trial Court had partly decreed the suit by dismissing the suit with respect to the reliefs 1 and 3, namely, for recovery of possession and for mesne profits but granted the relief of permanent injunction with respect to the 'B'-Schedule Property. The 'B'-Schedule Property is a Bajanai Madam situated in S.No.140/358.

¶17

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ___________

¶18

__________ Page No 2 of 8_

¶19

S.A.No.500 of 2001

¶20

Both the plaintiffs as well as the defendant claim the property through a Will, which said to have been executed by one Govindaraju Chettiar. The said Will was executed on 26.09.1972.

¶21

As per the Will, the house property situated in R.S.No.140/357

¶22

and the Bajanai Madam situated in R.S.No.140/358 were alloted to the plaintiffs/respondents. The defendant and his brother Sivarajan were allotted house property situated in R.S.No.140/359.

¶23

It is the case of the plaintiffs that the defendant along with his brother making claim over the Wall of the Bajanai Madam on the ground that their property is adjacent to the Bajanai Madam and therefore, they are entitled to claim it as co-owners. The Trial Court did not agree to this claim and partly decreed the suit as aforesaid. The Lower Appellate Court has confirmed the said findings.

¶24

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ___________

¶25

__________ Page No 3 of 8_

¶26

S.A.No.500 of 2001

¶27

This appeal was admitted on 04.04.2001 on the following Substantial Questions of Law:-

¶28

“a. Whether the Court below is correct in granting permanent injunction in respect of B-schedule property on the appellant and respondents, who are co-owners of the same?

¶29

b. Whether the Court below is correct in accepting the claim of the respondents without proving the title of the B-schedule property?

¶30

c. Is it not duty of the Court below to take into consideration the report of Advocate Commissioner while deciding the actual disputes between the parties?”

¶31

The entire issue relates to the interpretation of the Will of Late Govindaraju Chettiar. For the purpose of satisfying myself, I have gone through the Will, which was marked as Ex.A1.

¶32

As per the Will, the allotment was made as follows:-

¶33

"nkw;go jpUkiyuhad;gl;odk; lt[dpy;. Mz;lhsk;khs; kidf;Fk; fpHf;F. vdJ tPl;ow;Fk; nkw;F. bt';fnlrg;bgUkhs; bjw;F tPjpf;Fk; tlf;F. FkuntY brl;oahh;. rptnef brl;oahh;

¶34

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ___________

¶35

__________ Page No 4 of 8_

¶36

S.A.No.500 of 2001

¶37

,th;fs; kidf;Fk; bjw;F/ ,e;j ehd;F vy;iyfSf;F cl;gl;l ,lj;jpy; ,Uf;Fk; g$id klj;ija[k;. mjd; nky;g[wKs;s fl;Lf; nfhg;g[f;fy; tPl;ila[k; mijr; nrh;e;j bfhy;iyiaa[k; vdJ kidtp ehr;rhuk;khs; Ma[s;tiu mDgtpj;J. mts; Ma[Sf;Fg;gpd;. vdj VHhtJ kfd; nyhfehjd; mile;J mDgtpj;Jf; bfhs;s ntz;oaJ/

¶38

nkw;go jpUkiyuhad;gl;odk; lt[dpy;. bt';fnlrg;bgUkhs; nky tPjpapy;. nkw;go tPjpf;F nkw;F. g$id klj;jpw;Fk; fpHf;F.

¶39

bt';fnlrg;bgUkhs; bjw;F tPjpf;F tlf;F. FkuntY brl;oahh;. rptner brl;oahh; ,th;fs; kidf;Fj; bjw;F/ ,e;J ehd;F vy;iyfSf;F cl;gl;l fl;Lf; nfhg;g[f;fy; tPl;od; fPH;g[wk; rhpghjpiaa[k;. mijr; nrh;e;j bfhy;iy rhpghjpiaa[k; vdJ Ie;jhtJ kfd; rptuh$; mile;J mDgtpj;Jf; bfhs;s ntz;oaJ/

¶40

nkny tptuk; fz;Ls;s ehd;F vy;iyfSf;F cl;gl;l fl;Lf;nfhg;g[f;fy; tPl;od; nky;g[wk; rhpghjpiaa[k;. mijr; nrh;e;j bfhy;iyiaa[k;. vdJ MwhtJ kfd; uh$huhkd; mile;J mDgtp[j;Jf; bfhs;s ntz;oaJ/@

¶41

10. A reading of the Will makes it very clear that the division of the

¶42

property was not on the basis of measurements but on basis of the structures as it is.

¶43

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ___________

¶44

__________ Page No 5 of 8_

¶45

S.A.No.500 of 2001

¶46

Going by the structures, the Stone House and the Bajanai Madam, were allotted, with the land appurtenant to the plaintiffs/respondents. The Stone House is corresponds to R.S.No.140/357 and R.S.No.140/358. Similarly, one Sivarajan, brother of the defendant/appellant, who has not been impleaded to the suit and Rajaraman, the defendant/appellant herein were allotted the Stone House. There is no dispute in the minds of the parties regarding structures which were allotted. Both of them agreed to the Will and they have not disputed that Late Govindaraju Chettiar had the disposing power to execute the documents.

¶47

Having been benefited under the documents, the parties have to stand by it.

¶48

The perusal of the Will as aforesaid, shows that Nachiar Ammal and Loganathan, the plaintiffs/respondents are co-owners for the first Stone House and Bajanai Madam and Sivaraj and Rajaram, the defendant/appellant and his brother are the co-owners of other properties. One cannot claim a right over the other.

¶49

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ___________

¶50

__________ Page No 6 of 8_

¶51

S.A.No.500 of 2001

¶52

Consequently, the issue of treating Bajanai Madam as a property, which is jointly owned by the plaintiffs/respondents and the defendant/appellant does not arise.

¶53

The said Govindaraju Chettiar has been very careful in allocation of the properties by structures and not by measurements. This issue has been considered by the Trial Court and by the Lower Appellate Court.

¶54

The questions of law framed by the defendant/appellant for consideration in this appeal did not arise for consideration.

¶55

Therefore, the Judgments and decrees of the learned Principal District Munsif, Karaikal in O.S.No.14 of 1998 on 23.04.1999 and that of the learned Additional District Judge, Pondicherry at Karaikal in A.S.No.4 of 2000 on 14.09.2000 stands confirmed. The suit is decreed only insofar as the permanent injunction is concerned.

¶56

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ___________

¶57

__________ Page No 7 of 8_

¶58

S.A.No.500 of 2001

¶59

V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.

¶60

arb

¶61

In the result, the Second Appeal is dismissed. No costs.

¶62

25.04.2023

¶63

Index : Yes/No Speaking Order : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No

¶64

arb

¶65

To:

¶66

1.The Additional District Judge, Pondicherry at Karaikal.

¶67

2.The Principal District Munsif, Karaikal.

¶68

3.The Section Officer, Vernacular Section, High Court of Madras.

¶69

S.A.No.500 of 2001

¶70

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ___________

¶71

__________ Page No 8 of 8_

Rajaraman v. Nachiar Ammal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajaraman v. Nachiar Ammal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mani[Deceased] Vs Saroja(Died)

Seetharaman Vs Periyasamy

Srinivasan Vs Kandaasamy

Samiappan Vs the Executive Officer

Saroja Ammal Vs Kasilinga Padayachi

1.SARAJAMMAL Vs Kasilinga Padayachi