Appeal against decree for partition granting the plaintiff-sister a 1/3rd share in family properties. The High Court held that items 3 to 11 were purchased from joint family money-lending income, that the mother's Will excluding other heirs was not proved due to unremoved suspicious circumstances, 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.
A.S.(MD).No.105 of 2013
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated: 23.02.2024
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P. DHANABAL
A.S(MD) No.105 of 2013 and CMP(MD)No.9498 of 2017
M.Angayarkannan
... Appellant
Vs.
(Respondents 3 to 7 were brought on record as legal heirs of the deceased 1st respondent vide order dated 21.03.2019 in CMP(MD)Nos. 9572 to 9574 of 2018)
Prayer : This Appeal Suit has been filed under Section 96 of C.P.C., against the judgment and decree dated 16.02.2012 made in O.S.No.83 of
2008 on the file of the learned I-Additional District Judge, Madurai.
1/30
A.S.(MD).No.105 of 2013
For Appellants : Ms.N.Juliet Latha For Respondents : Mr.M.Ajmal Khan Senior Counsel for M/s.Ajmal Associates for R3 to R7 :Ms.S.Jainab Beevi for R2 : R1 died
JUDGMENT
This appeal has been preferred as against the Judgment passed by the learned I-Additional District Judge, Madurai, in O.S.No.83 of 2008 dated 16.02.2012, wherein, the first respondent herein has filed a suit for the relief of partition, separate possession and for costs and other reliefs. The trial Court decreed the suit. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the present appeal has been preferred by the 2nd defendants.
will be referred to as per their status/ranking before the trial Court.
2/30
A.S.(MD).No.105 of 2013
3. The brief facts before the trial Court are as follows:
The plaintiff is the daughter of the first defendant and sister of the second and third defendants. The plaintiff and the defendants are the legal heirs of the Late Muniyasamy Naidu. Item 1 & 2 of the suit schedule property are the ancestral properties of the said Muniyasamy Naidu. During his life time out of his income, he purchased item No.3 of the schedule property in his name and items 4, 5 and 8 in the name of his wife/first defendant. The said Muniyasamy died intestate leaving behind him the plaintiff and the defendants as his legal heirs. After his demise, his legal heirs are enjoying the property jointly as co-parceners. They all worked together and developed the property from out of the income generated from the properties left by the said Muniyasamy. Further, they purchased the item 6 & 7 in the name of the first defendant and item 9 to 11 in the name of the second defendant from and out of the income generated through the money lending business. The second defendant taking an upper hand over the first defendant being the son of the first defendant and trying to take over all the properties left by the deceased Muniyasamy, which they were enjoying as co-parcerners. Hence, the plaintiff demanded her share in all the properties and demanded partition.
3/30
A.S.(MD).No.105 of 2013
But the defendants evaded to divide the property and allot 1/4th share to the plaintiff. Hence, the plaintiff issued legal notice dated 21.04.2008. The second defendant alone replied to the said notice on 16.05.2008 with false averments stating that the first defendant has purchased the other properties by selling jewels and shridhana properties and the same was not known to the plaintiff. The first defendant has also executed a Will in this regard. The plaintiff denied that the first defendant has no right to execute such Will and the said Will was created only to defeat the plaintiff from getting any share of the properties from the joint family properties. Since the properties are co-parcerners properties, the second defendant is managing the properties on behalf of the co-parcerners. During the pendency of the suit, the first defendant died on 13.08.2008. Being one of the legalheirs, the plaintiff is entitled to share of the deceased first defendant and thereby the plaintiff is entitled to 1/3th share of the properties.
4. The averments made in the written statement filed by the
second defendant are as follows:
The second defendant stated that the item Nos.1 and 2 of the
4/30
A.S.(MD).No.105 of 2013
properties belonged to Late Muniyasamy Naidu and his two brothers and it is a house vacant site. No income was received by Muniyasamy Naidu from the said items and he was working in Harvey Mills Limited, Madurai. His wife, first defendant sold her shridhana jewels and using the sale consideration for her financial business. Muniyasamy Naidu never purchased the item 3 of the schedule properties in his name. It was purchased by the first defendant after the death of her husband. She alone purchased the item 7 of the properties in her husband's (Muniyasamy) name through registered sale deed on 22.05.1971. And also with the help of the second defendant, she purchased item 3 to 11 of the properties. Item 3 of the property was purchased in her name through a registered sale deed dated 26.03.1980. The item 9 of the property was purchased through registered sale deed dated 31.05.1978 and the second defendant purchased item 10 of the property through registered sale deed dated 24.10.1979. The second defendant was doing agricultural operations besides real estate business and earned a lot of amount and purchased item 9 and 10. Item No.11 of the suit property belonged to one Nagappan, who borrowed amount from the 1st defendant and executed Othi deed dated 11.09.1971 and subsequently, the property was sold to
5/30
A.S.(MD).No.105 of 2013
the 1st defendant vide registered sale deed dated 19.02.1975. Further, item 6 & 7 in the name of the first defendant and item 9 to 11 in the name of the second defendant was purchased from and out of the income generated through the money lending business. The plaintiff and the defendants never enjoyed the schedule properties jointly during the life time of Muniyasamy or after his demise. Hence, the plaintiff is not entitled to any share in the schedule mentioned property. The 2nd defendant never pressurized the deceased/1st defendant to execute a Will. During her life time, she executed the said Will on 16.02.2004 and registered the same and she died on 13.08.2008. Thereafter, the second defendant is in absolute possession and enjoyment of the schedule mentioned properties and hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed.
the following issues.
6/30
A.S.(MD).No.105 of 2013
were examined and Exs.A1 to A12 were marked. On the side of the defendant DW1 to DW3 were examined and Ex.B1 to Ex.B6 were marked.
7/30
A.S.(MD).No.105 of 2013
8/30
A.S.(MD).No.105 of 2013
examination that she does not know whether item 9 and 10 of the schedule of properties are standing in the
name of the Appellant or not.
9/30
A.S.(MD).No.105 of 2013
defendant's husband, 1" defendant has obtained a re registered mortgage deed dated 11.09.1971 and registered as 3784/1971 in respect of item 11 of the schedule of property and subsequently sold the same to 1st defendant Exhibit D2. The said document clearly shows that 1st defendant was doing money lending business.
10.the lower court failed to decide the issues 1 and 2 against the plaintiff by relied on Exhibit B2 document ought to have decided the issue No.3 in favour of the 1st defendant on the basis of the exhibit B2 sale deed and the registered mortgage deed.
10/30
A.S.(MD).No.105 of 2013
that the suit properties are not joint family properties. The first and second item of the properties alone are ancestral properties of Muniyasamy Naidu. The other properties were purchased by the first and second defendants. The second item of the property was purchased by the first defendant through her savings and is under the exclusive possession of the second defendant. The item Nos.9 and 10 were purchased by the second defendant through his business earnings and the item Nos.3, 5 and 8 were purchased by the first defendant out of her own cost. Item No.11 also purchased by the first defendant.
11/30
A.S.(MD).No.105 of 2013
from the first and second item of the suit schedule property. Item No.3 of the property was purchased through sale deed dated 26.03.1980 and other item Nos.4,5,6 & 8 were purchased by the first defendant out of the income through finance business. The 7th item of the property was purchased by the first defendant in the name of her husband through sale deed dated 22.05.1971. The second defendant was doing Real Estate business and doing various business and earned a lot of income. The 9th item of the property was purchased by the 7th respondent herein through the registered sale deed dated 31.05.1982 and the item No.10 of the property was purchased by the second defendant through registered sale deed dated 21.04.1978. The 11th item was purchased by the first defendant through the registered sale deed dated 16.10.1973 through her own earnings. Prior to that the property was mortgaged and the first defendant was settled the mortgaged money to one Nagappan and obtained mortgage deed and thereafter she purchased the property through sale deed. As such, the properties all are self-acquired properties and of the first and second defendants. But the trial Court erroneously came to a conclusion that though the sale deeds stand in the name of the second defendant, the evidences show that those properties were
12/30
A.S.(MD).No.105 of 2013
purchased through the income of the joint family property and hence, decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs. Therefore, the decree and judgment passed by the trial Court are liable to be set aside.
13/30
A.S.(MD).No.105 of 2013
be treated as joint family properties. The trial Court also after elaborate discussion, correctly hold that the properties are joint family properties of the plaintiff and the defendant and thereby granted decree for partition over the 1/3rd share to the plaintiff. As far as the alleged Will is concerned, the alleged Will was executed by the first defendant. The first respondent/plaintiff herein denied the execution of the Will. The mother of the plaintiff, second defendant and third defendant never executed any Will in favour of the second defendant. There is no reason stated in the Will for exclusion of the other legal heirs and the second defendant failed to remove the suspicious circumstances. Further, the properties belongs to the second defendant also included in the list of properties in the Will. Therefore, the Will creates suspicious over the execution and attestation of the Will. Therefore, the defendants failed to prove the Will in accordance with law. Therefore, the trial Court, after considering all the aspects correctly, decreed the suit and the present appeal is liable to be dismissed.
14/30
A.S.(MD).No.105 of 2013
perused the records.
Point Nos.1 to3:
15/30
A.S.(MD).No.105 of 2013
the parties. The plaintiff and the second defendants are the children of the first defendant and one Muniyasamy Naidu. The 1st and 2nd item of the properties belonged to Muniyasamy by ancestrally and the other items of the properties were purchased in the name of first and second defendants from the earnings of the joint family properties and joint family business of money lending run by the father of the plaintiffs and continued by the 1st and 2nd defendants. The plaintiffs and the defendants are in joint possession of the properties. According to the plaintiff, all the properties are purchased from out of the income of the joint family business.
16/30
A.S.(MD).No.105 of 2013
17/30
A.S.(MD).No.105 of 2013
family properties and his father Muniyasamy has not purchased the property item Nos.3,4 and 8 and the same were purchased by the first defendant through her Sridhana properties, ie., gold jewels, she sold the jewels and was doing money lending business and thereby she earned more money and purchased the properties through her personal income.
Harvey Mills Limited, Madurai and his mother, ie., first defendant Mariayammal is an illiterate and she did not know to read and write and
his father after rendering 35 years of service in the said Mill, got voluntary retirement. Further he admitted that he purchased properties through Real Estate business income and he stated that “tl;o bjhHpiy 6. 7 tUlkhf bra;J rhpahd tUkhdk; ,y;yhjjhy; hpay;v!;nll; bjhHpYf;F ngha;tpl;nld;/1980 ypUe;J Rkhh; 5.6 tUl';fs; ,Uf;Fk;/
tl;o bfhLj;jjw;F fzf;Fg; g[j;jf';fs; guhkhpf;ftpy;iy/ ahh; ahhplk; bfhLj;njd; vd;w tpguKk; jw;nghJ brhy;yKoahJ/ vdf;F tptuk; bjhpe;jnj 1980 y;jhd; vd;Wk; mjw;F Kd; ehd; tl;objhHpy; bra;J rk;ghjpj;jJ
18/30
A.S.(MD).No.105 of 2013
bgha; vd;W brhd;dhy; rhpay;y/ vd; mk;kh vd; mg;gh 1977 y; ,we;j gpwF ntspna nghtij epWj;jp tpl;ljhy; ehd; ngha; tR{y; bra;J te;njd;/ 1976y; vd; jfg;gdhh; gLj;j gLf;ifahfptpl;lhh;/ mjw;F Kd;g[ ey;y jplfhj;jpukhf ,Ue;jjhy; mjw;F Kd;g[ mth; ntiyf;Fg; ngha; te;jjhy; tl;of;Fg; gzk; bfhLj;J te;jhh;/”
doing business from 1980 to 1986 and the properties were purchased in the year 1980. The third item of the property was purchased in the year 1980 and the item No.9 was purchased in the year 1982 and item No.10 was purchased in the year 1979. Therefore, the contention of the second defendant, ie., he purchased the properties through his personal earnings is not acceptable. He has admitted that his father was doing money lending business. Further he admitted that after the demise of his father, his mother stopped to go to outside whereby he collected the money. Hence, it shows that the father was doing money lending business and the same was continued by him. Further, DW1 himself admitted that there is no sufficient income from the money lending business and
19/30
A.S.(MD).No.105 of 2013
thereby he changed his business. Therefore, the contention of the defendant that the item Nos.9 and 10 of the properties were purchased from his personal earnings is not acceptable and he admitted that his father also was doing money lending business and he collected the money after the demise of his father. Therefore, this Court can infer that the property purchased only from the income of the joint family. As far as the other properties stand in the name of the first defendant is concerned, according to the first defendant, she purchased the properties, but there is no proof to show that she had separate income. There is no evidence to show that the first defendant had jewels and started money lending business by selling her jewels and DW1 himself admitted that he used to collect money and his mother stopped to go outside her house after the demise of his father. PW2 independent witness also stated that the defendants 1 &2 have no sufficient means to purchase the properties and the second defendant has no employment. Therefore, as admitted by the PW1, the properties were not purchased by her mother through her personal income. In the absence of concrete evidence, to show that through the income of the first defendant, the properties were purchased, it has to be presumed that the properties have been purchased through the
20/30
A.S.(MD).No.105 of 2013
joint family income. Therefore, the defendant failed to prove that they purchased the properties through her personal earnings. Further, according to the defendant, the 7th item was purchased in the name of the deceased father of the plaintiff in the year 1971 by the first defendant, but no piece of evidence produced to prove the same. But the defendants themselves admitted that the 7th item of the property stands in the name of their father Muniyasamy. Therefore unless the contrary is proved, it is the presumption that the 7th item of the property is belonged to Muniyasamy.
21/30
A.S.(MD).No.105 of 2013
Thus the point Nos.1 to 3 are answered.
Point No.4:
the item No.3,4,5,8 and 11 of the properties and she executed a Will in favour of the second defendant dated 16.02.2004. In order to prove the same, DW3 was examined. Already this Court in the previous points decided that the properties are not separate properties of the first defendant and the same are joint family properties and thereby the first defendant has no right to execute a Will for the entire properties. Though the defendants examined DW2 & DW3, the defendants failed to remove the suspicious circumstances over the execution of Will. As per the Will, the property purchased by Muniyasamy Naidu and the 9th item of suit property which is said to be purchased by the 2nd defendant were also included in the Will as if they belonged to the 1st defendant. Even as per the Will the 2nd defendant has no permanent job and he is depending the agricultural work and further the 1st defendant purchased the property through her agricultural income and the said statements are totally contra to the plaint averments.
22/30
A.S.(MD).No.105 of 2013
“26. As regards the legal enforceability and validity of Ex.DI, what are all the discussions undertaken for Ex.P1, Will have to be adopted. In the Will Ex.D1, even though the sons were directed to defray the marriage expenses of their sisters, still there is no reason contained in the Will for exclusion of daughters from inheritance. Bearing the marriage expenses is different from excluding the daughters from inheritance. There is no evidence on record to show that as per the Will and pleasure of the testatrix, the Defendants celebrated the marriages of their sisters by incurring the marriage expenditure. The proper persons to speak about this are the Defendants. But they did not enter into the box. DWs.2 & 3 have only identified the signatures of their fathers. In the absence of any material or evidence to show that as
23/30
A.S.(MD).No.105 of 2013
stipulated in Ex.D1, that the Defendants incurred the marriage expenses of their sisters, the necessary corollary would be that they did not perform their marriages. Hence, unnatural disposition in Ex.DI, will excluding the daughters from inheritance would constitute a valid suspicious circumstance which the Defendants have failed to remove. What are all the principles allowed in respect of Ex.P1 have to be followed in the case of Ex.D1 also.”
“30.As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the Plaintiff in O.S.No307 of 2004, Sowdammal, who was the mother of atleast seven children would not have, but for very strong reason, executed a Will excluding six of her children from inheriting her property. We do not find any explanation either in the Will or in the evidence of DW2 & DW3.”
24/30
A.S.(MD).No.105 of 2013
heirs would create suspicion over the Will, thereby execution of the Will is not proved in the case on hand also, though the defendants were examined DW3, attesting witness of the Will, this Court already discussed as per the above judgments, the defendants failed to clear the suspicious circumstances over the Will and thereby the Will has not been proved by the defendants.
Point No.5:
27. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of partition:
In this case, the suit is for the relief of partition and no dispute in respect of the relationship of the parties. In the previous points, this Court already decided that item Nos.3 to 11 of the properties were
25/30
A.S.(MD).No.105 of 2013
purchased from the income of the joint family properties. Therefore, the properties of Muniyasamy have to be divided into four equal shares. After the demise of wife of Muniyasamy, ie., 1st defendant, the property has to be divided into 3 equal shares. During the pendency of the proceedings, first defendant died and thereby the plaintiff, second and third defendants are equally entitled to the properties of the deceased Munisasamy Naidu and the first defendant. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to 1/3rd share of the schedule properties.
Point Nos.6&7:
26/30
A.S.(MD).No.105 of 2013
evidence adduced on both side and fairly came to the conclusion that the properties are joint family properties and the plaintiff is entitled for 1/3rd share of the properties namely, item Nos.2 to 11.
27/30
A.S.(MD).No.105 of 2013
the judgment of the trial Court. Considering the relationship of the parties, there shall be no order as to Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
23.02.2024
NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet: Yes/No PJL
To
2.The Record Keeper, Vernacular Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
28/30
A.S.(MD).No.105 of 2013
29/30
A.S.(MD).No.105 of 2013
P. DHANABAL,J.
PJL
A.S(MD) No.105 of 2013
23.02.2024
30/30
3 issues framed by the court
Whether items 3 to 11 were purchased from joint family income or from the personal incomes of the first and second defendants?
Whether the Will dated 16.02.2004 by the first defendant in favour of the second defendant was validly proved absent suspicious circumstances?
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a 1/3rd share in the suit properties?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
G.Lalitha v. G.Ponnurangam and othersRelied on¶23
2011(5)CTC262
V.Selvarani (died) and others v. R.BalakrishnanRelied on¶24
2024(1)CTC 561
1 provisions across 1 enactments
M.Angayarkannan
R.Dhanalakshmi
K.Velammal
N.Ramachandran
R.Suguna
R.Udayakumar
P. Dhanabal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
