Second appeal against concurrent decrees in a title and injunction suit. The court held the suit properties were the self-acquired property of Mannar Naidu; his widow's limited right under the 1937 Act enlarged into absolute ownership under Section 14(1), validating her sales to the plaintiff.
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.416 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 12.12.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTIC E R.HEMALATHA
S.A.No.416 of 2018
D.Purushothaman ... Appellant Vs.
Prayer : Second Appeal filed under Section 100 CPC, 1908 against the decree and judgment dated 09.11.2017 passed in A.S. No.2 of 2011 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Court, Chengalpattu, upholding the decree and judgment dated 23.09.2010 passed in O.S.No.6 of 2000, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Chengalpattu.
For Appellant : Mr.S.Natana Rajan For R1 : Mr.G.Magesh Kumar For R2 : No appearance
JUDGMENT
The appellant is the first defendant in O.S.No.6 of 2000, on the
file of the District Munsif Court, Chengalpattu. The first respondent /
Page 1 of 16
S.A.No.416 of 2018
plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of her title to the suit properties and for a consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men and agents from interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. She further sought a relief of mandatory injunction directing the defendants to cancel the encumbrance created over the suit properties and for costs.
their ranking in the trial court and at appropriate places, their rank in the present appeal would also be indicated.
The suit properties were originally owned by one Dhanraj Sowcar. He executed a sale deed in favour of Mannar Naidu. Mannar Naidu died intestate leaving behind his wife Chinnammal as his sole legal heir. Chinnammal sold the properties to the plaintiff through two registered sale deeds dated 23.09.1994 (Ex.A11) and 26.09.1994 (Ex.A12) and ever since the date of purchase, the plaintiff has been in
Page 2 of 16
S.A.No.416 of 2018
possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. Prior to that, the first defendant (appellant herein) had fraudulently obtained patta in his name in respect of the suit properties. Therefore, Chinnammal filed a petition before the Sub Collector, Chengalpattu, for cancellation of patta issued in favour of the first defendant. After conducting an enquiry, the Sub Collector, Chengalpattu, vide his orders dated 06.01.1988 (Ex.A4), cancelled the patta issued in favour of the first defendant (appellant herein) and patta was issued in favour of Chinnammal. Thereafter, the first defendant preferred an appeal before the District Revenue Officer, Chengalpattu. The District Revenue Officer, Chengalpattu confirmed the orders passed by the Sub Collector, Chengalpattu, vide his proceedings dated 03.08.1995 (Ex.A10). The appellant herein did not prefer any revision before the Commissioner of Board of Revenue and therefore, the orders passed by the District Revenue Officer, Chengalpattu, has become final. However, the first defendant colluded with his co-brother, the second defendant (second respondent in the present appeal) and executed a mortgage deed in his favour, in respect of the suit properties. This mortgage deed was executed only after the disposal of the appeal by
Page 3 of 16
S.A.No.416 of 2018
the District Revenue Officer, Chengalpattu. The plaintiff issued a notice to the defendants dated 28.03.1999 (Ex.A21). The defendants received the said notice as is evidenced by the postal acknowledgment cards (Ex.A22 and Ex.A23) and sent a reply notice dated 19.05.1999 (Ex.A24) which according to the plaintiff contained false allegations. Hence, the suit.
and was set ex parte . The suit was resisted by the first defendant on the following grounds:
i. The suit properties are not the absolute properties of Mannar Naidu. They are the ancestral properties of the defendants and Mannar Naidu.
iii. Devaraj Naidu executed a maintenance deed dated 02.07.1945 (Ex.B24) in favour of Chinnammal in and by which a life estate was created.
Page 4 of 16
S.A.No.416 of 2018
Page 5 of 16
S.A.No.416 of 2018
ix. Devaraj Naidu purchased the properties from out of the income
derived from the joint family properties and therefore, Chinnammal who had limited rights over the suit properties cannot sell the same in favour of the plaintiff.
the following issues and additional issue :
"i. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration ? ii. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for injunction ? iii. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for mandatory injunction? iv. To what relief ?"
Additional issue :
"Whether the restricted clause imposed in the alleged maintenance deed dated 20.07.1945 executed by Devaraj Naidu in favour of his brother's wife Chinnammal incorporating the suit properties enlarged into as her absolute property after the commencement of Hindu Succession Act 1956 thereby, whether the sale by Chinnammal to the plaintiff valid as contended by plaintiff ?"
Page 6 of 16
S.A.No.416 of 2018
another witness and marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A26. The first defendant examined himself and one another witness and marked Ex.B1 to Ex.B41.
Page 7 of 16
S.A.No.416 of 2018
of law was framed :
“Whether the Courts below were right in concluding that limited estate conferred upon Chinnammal by her brother-in-law Devarajalu Naidu under Ex.B24 would blossom into an absolute estate by virtue of Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956"
and Mr.G.Magesh Kumar learned counsel for the first respondent.
Page 8 of 16
S.A.No.416 of 2018
Kuppusamy
Munusamy Ayyaravu naidu
Mannar naidu Devaraj Naidu Kuppusamy Balram Naidu
= Chinnammal = Ponnammal
Purushothaman (D1) Udhayakumari
There was a partition between the two brothers Munusamy Naidu and Ayyaravu Naidu and they were allotted 1/2 share each in respect of their family properties. Ayyaravu Naidu had borrowed loan from one Gulabchand Sowcar. He did not discharge the loan amount and in the insolvency petition in I.P.No.7/1929, he was adjudged an insolvent by the District Munsif, Chengalpattu. The properties of Ayyaravu Naidu were brought under court auction sale and one Dhanraj Sowcar purchased the properties of Ayyaravu Naidu through a sale deed dated 12.04.1932 (Ex.B38). The properties covered under Ex.B38 are the present suit properties. Subsequently, Dhanraj Sowcar sold the suit properties in
Page 9 of 16
S.A.No.416 of 2018
favour of Mannar Naidu through a registered sale deed dated 07.09.1934 (Ex.A1).
Page 10 of 16
S.A.No.416 of 2018
Page 11 of 16
S.A.No.416 of 2018
in food and worship is a Hindu joint family but there is no presumption that the estate is joint or the property is the Hindu joint family property. The party who asserts that the property is Hindu joint family property has to prove it.
Page 12 of 16
S.A.No.416 of 2018
Chinnammal giving her life estate in respect of the suit properties. When it is the self acquired properties of Mannar Naidu, Devaraj Naidu had no right to execute the maintenance deed in favour of Chinnammal. Sections 3(2) and 3(3) of the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act, 1937 stipulate that a right would be created in favour of a widow on the death of her husband. This right got enlarged as per Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Thus Chinnammal had become the absolute owner of the suit properties. The plaintiff has purchased the suit properties from Chinnammal through two registered sale deeds dated 23.09.1994 (Ex.A11) and 26.09.1994 (Ex.A12). The plaintiff also obtained pattas (Ex.A13 and Ex.A14) in respect of the suit properties. She is also in enjoyment of the suit properties as is seen from the kist receipts (Ex.A15 to Ex.A18) paid by her to the Government. Though it was argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that Chinnammal was ousted out of the suit properties, the same cannot be accepted in the absence of a specific pleading in the written statement. Ouster has to be pleaded and proved.
Page 13 of 16
S.A.No.416 of 2018
analysed each and every aspect of this case and had given a finding that the plaintiff is entitled for all the reliefs prayed for by her. Therefore, the
substantial question of law is answered accordingly.
12.12.2024
Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Speaking/Non-Speaking order mtl
Page 14 of 16
S.A.No.416 of 2018
To
2. The District Munsif, Chengalpattu.
3. The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court, Madras.
Page 15 of 16
S.A.No.416 of 2018
R. HEMALATHA, J. mtl
S.A.No.416 of 2018
12.12.2024
Page 16 of 16
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the limited estate conferred on Chinnammal under the maintenance deed Ex.B24 blossomed into an absolute estate under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
D. Purushothaman
D. Kuppabai
Seetharaman
R. Hemalatha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
