Plaintiffs sought partition claiming suit properties were joint family property bought from compensation for ancestral land acquired by Neyveli Lignite Corporation. The court found the properties were purchased before acquisition and compensation, hence self-acquired, upheld the settlement deed to defendants, and dismissed 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.
S.A.No.187 of 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 18.06.2024
PRONOUNCED ON : 30.07.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM
S.A.No.187 of 2010
Vs.
2.Sundaramurthy ... Respondents
1/15
S.A.No.187 of 2010
Prayer :- Second Appeal has been filed under Section 100 of CPC against the Judgement and Decree of the the learned Principal Subordinate Judge,
Cuddalore dated 14.08.2009 made in A.S.No.14 of 2008 and Cross Appeal No.23 of 2009, reversing the order of the learned Principal District Munsif, Cuddalore dated 19.12.2007 made in O.S.No.281 of 2003.
For Appellants : Mr. G. Sumitra
For Respondents : Mr. T.Saikrishnan
JUDGMENT
Challenge in this second appeal is made to the Judgement and Decree dated 14.08.2009 passed by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore in A.S.No.14 of 2008 and Cross Appeal No.23 of 2009, reversing the Judgment and Decree dated 19.12.2007 passed by the learned Principal District Munsiff, Cuddalore in O.S.No.281 of 2003.
2/15
S.A.No.187 of 2010
3/15
S.A.No.187 of 2010
written statement, they denied the allegations raised in the plaint. The suit properties are self acquired properties of the first defendant and it has been purchased prior to the acquisition proceedings of Neyveli Lignite Corporation. The first defendant had executed a settlement deed dated 10.11.1992 in favour of the defendants 2 and 3 with regard to the suit properties. Since it is a self acquired properties of the first defendant, he has got a right to execute the settlement deed. The first defendant had married the mother of the defendants 2 and 3 with the consent of his first wife Kalyani Ammal, who is none other than her sister and thus pleaded to dismiss with cost.
the following issues were framed by the trial Court for consideration:
1. Is it true that the suit property is not a joint family property ?
2. Is it true that the suit property is the self acquired property of the first defendant ?
3. Whether the settlement deed dated 10.11.1992 executed by the first defendant in favour of the defendants 2 and 3 is genuine and valid ?
4/15
S.A.No.187 of 2010
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for partition of 1/2 share in the suit property ?
5. To what reliefs the plaintiff is entitled to?
7 . Before the Trial Court, in support of the plaintiff's case, the first plaintiff examined herself as PW1 and P.W.2 and P.W.3 were examined and two documents were marked as Ex.A.1 & Ex.A.2. On the side of the defendants, the third defendant examined himself as DW1 and 9 documents were marked as Ex.B.1 to Ex.B9.
5/15
S.A.No.187 of 2010
allowed the appeal in A.S.No14 of 2008 and dismissed the Cross Appeal No.23 of 2009. Now, challenging the same, the present Second Appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs.
1 . Whether the Lower Appellate Court is right in holding that the plaintiffs have not discharged the burden of proving that the suit properties are joint family properties, more so when it is an admitted case of the parties that Chinnasami had possessed ancestral properties and he did not have any other avocaion except the cultivation of the said ancestral properties ?
2. Whether the Lower Appellate Court is right in upholding the truth and validity of the Ex.B.9 namely Settlement Deed, dated 10.11.1992 when the same had not been proved in accordance with the requirements under Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act more so when the same has been denied in the plaint ?
6/15
S.A.No.187 of 2010
S.A.No.187 of 2010
in accordance with law. The Trial Court failed to appreciate the fact and allowed the appeal. Further, the learned counsel reiterated the other grounds raised in the grounds of appeal and thus, pleaded to allow the Second Appeal.
S.A.No.187 of 2010
first defendant and the plaintiffs are not entitled for any share in the suit
properties. Therefore, there is no error in the findings of the First Appellate Court. No ground for interference and thus , seeking to dismiss the second appeal as there is no substantial question of law involved in this Second Appeal. The learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Manu/SC/1307/2019 ( Govindbhai Chhotabhai Patel & otrs /vs/ Patel Ramanbhai Mathurbhai) and the judgment of this Court in A.S.No.547 of 2016 dated 12.10.2023( Batmavady & otrs /vs/ Sarala & otrs )
the learned counsel on both sides and perused the materials available on records carefully.
S.A.No.187 of 2010
learned counsel on both sides, and on perusal of the records, it is seen that in the suit, the plaintiffs claimed 3/4 share in the suit schedule properties on the ground that the suit properties are joint family properties. The first defendant have ancestral properties, which were acquired by Neyveli Lignite Corporation and out of the compensation amount received by the first defendant, he purchased the suit schedule properties. Therefore, the plaintiffs are entitled for 3/4 share in the joint family properties.
10/15
S.A.No.187 of 2010
S.A.No.187 of 2010
ExB.8. But, the suit properties were purchased in the year 1978 and 1980, i.e. prior to the appointment of the plaintiff's husband employment at Neyveli Lignite Corporation. Therefore, the contention of the plaintiffs that the first plaintiff's husband has given amount for purchasing the suit schedule properties is also not an acceptable one.
12/15
S.A.No.187 of 2010
no merit in the Second Appeal. No substantial question of law is involved in https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 13/15
S.A.No.187 of 2010
this case and the second appeal is not maintainable and the substantial questions of law formulated in the second appeal are, accordingly, answered against the plaintiffs.
dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition, if any, is closed.
Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No 30.07.2024
mrp
To
14/15
S.A.No.187 of 2010
V.SIVAGNANAM, J.
mrp
Pre-Delivery Judgment made in S.A.No.187 of 2010
30.07.2024
15/15
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the suit properties were joint family properties purchased from compensation for ancestral lands acquired by Neyveli Lignite Corporation.
Whether the registered settlement deed dated 10.11.1992 required proof by attesting witnesses under Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Govindbhai Chhotabhai Patel vs Patel Ramanbhai MathurbhaiApplied¶20
Manu/SC/1307/2019 ( Govindbhai Chhotabhai Patel & otrs /vs/ Patel Ramanbhai Mathurbhai)
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Buvaneswari
Minor Rajalakshmi
Minor Rajasekar
Minor Rajasree
Minor Raveena
Palanivel
V.Sivagnanam
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
