Madras High Court
Guru.Muniyandi ... 1St vs G.R.Meenakshi(Deceased) ... 1St on 22 April, 2021
1 S.A.(MD)NO.820 OF 2014
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 22.04.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
S.A.(MD)No.820 of 2014 and
M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2014
1. Guru.Muniyandi ... 1st Appellant/1st Appellant/
2nd Defendant
2. Sudha Ananthi ... 2nd Appellant/2nd Appellant/
4th Defendant
Vs.
1. G.R.Meenakshi(deceased) ... 1st Respondent/1st Respondent/
Plaintiff
2. G.R.Subramanian ... 2nd Respondent/2nd Respondent/
1st Defendant
3. G.R.Krishnamoorthy ... 3rd Respondent/3rd Respondent/
3rd Defendant
4. K.Alagumathi ... 4th Respondent/4th Respondent/
5th Defendant
5. Kaliyammal
6. Pushpa
7. Vijayalakshmi ... Respondents 5 to 7
(R-5 to R-7 are impleaded vide order
dated 14.12.2016 in
C.M.P.(MD)Nos.5481 to 5483 of 2016)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/11
2 S.A.(MD)NO.820 OF 2014
Prayer: Second appeal filed under Section 100 of
C.P.C., to call for the records and set aside the Judgment and
Decree of the Sub Judge, Devakottai in A.S.No.27 of 2013
dated 19.02.2014 by confirming the Decree and Judgment of
the Principal District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate,
Karaikudi in O.S.No.166 of 2011 dated 13.06.2013 by allowing
this second appeal.
For Appellant : Mr.A.Haja Mohideen
For R-2 to R-4 : Mr.Ananth C.Rajesh
For R-5 to R-7 : Mr.S.Srinivasa Raghavan
***
JUDGMENT
Defendants 2 and 4 in O.S.No.166 of 2011 on the file
of the District Munsif, Karaikudi, are the appellants in this
second appeal. The said suit was instituted by one Guru
Meenakshi. The said Guru Meenakshi was the wife of
Gurusamy. They were blessed with six children, namely, three
sons and three daughters. Guru Meenakshi received Ex.A.4
notice dated 31.03.2011 from her sons, namely, Guru
Muniyandi and Guru Krishnamoorthy. Ex.A.4 notice informed
Guru Meenakshi that on 27.10.2000, a family arrangement
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
3 S.A.(MD)NO.820 OF 2014
was entered into and in the said family arrangement, Guru
Meenakshi and Gurusamy figured as first party while the
three sons were shown as second, third and fourth parties.
The properties belonging to the joint family were divided
among the four parties and the exact division was reflected in
schedules 'A' to 'D'. The said two sons called upon their
mother, namely, the plaintiff not to act contrary to the terms
of the family arrangement. To the said Ex.A.4 notice, Guru
Meenakshi sent her reply dated 08.04.2011(Ex.A.5). In Ex.A.5,
Guru Meenakshi challenged the genuineness of the family
arrangement dated 27.10.2000 projected by her sons Guru
Muniyandi and Guru Krishnamoorthy. That was followed by
the institution of O.S.No.166 of 2011. After the exchange of
these notices, the second defendant executed a settlement
deed dated 10.05.2011(document No.1963 of 2011) in favour
of the fourth defendant in which 50% share in the suit
schedule has been conveyed. Likewise the third defendant
had conveyed the other 50% share in the suit schedule in
favour of his wife/fifth defendant vide settlement deed dated
10.05.2011(document No.1964 of 2011). Therefore, Guru
Meenakshi filed O.S.No.166 of 2011 in which she sought
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
4 S.A.(MD)NO.820 OF 2014
declaration that the suit schedule property is her exclusive
property and sought permanent injunction restraining the
respondents from interfering with her possession of the
property. She also sought declaration that the settlement
deeds dated 10.05.2011 executed by the second and third
defendants in favour of the fourth and fifth defendants will not
bind her. The second defendant filed the written statement
and the other contesting defendants adopted the same. The
first defendant remained ex-parte. The plaintiff examined
herself as P.W.1 and marked Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.8. Defendants 2,4
and 5 examined themselves as defendants 1 to 3 and marked
Ex.B.1 to Ex.19. The learned trial Judge by Judgment and
Decree dated 13.06.2013, substantially decreed the suit and it
was declared that the suit schedule property exclusively
belongs to the plaintiff. It was further declared that the
impugned settlement deeds were not valid and binding on her.
Since it was held that there was no cause of action, the relief
of permanent injunction was denied.
2. Questioning the same, the aggrieved defendants
filed A.S.No.27 of 2013 before the Sub Court, Devakottai. Vide
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
5 S.A.(MD)NO.820 OF 2014
Judgment and Decree dated 19.02.2014, the appeal was
dismissed. Challenging the same, the second appeal came to
be filed.
3. Though the second appeal is of the year 2014, till
date it has not been admitted and no substantial question of
law has been framed. Notice was issued and thereafter the
respondents entered appearance. The matter was even
referred for mediation. But no settlement could be arrived at.
In the meanwhile, the plaintiff Guru Meenakshi passed away
on 17.10.2015 and thereafter, respondents 5 to 7 were
brought on record.
4. It was also noted that vide Ex.B.14 dated
24.05.2011, the suit property had been settled by the plaintiff
in favour of one of her daughters, namely, Kala @
Kaliyammal/fifth respondent herein.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants
submitted that the suit property was only one of the items in
Ex.A.3 family arrangement dated 27.10.2000. He would point
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
6 S.A.(MD)NO.820 OF 2014
out that the suit was filed some 11 years after the said family
arrangement was executed. According to him, during the
intervening years, it was already acted upon. He would
contend that the suit schedule property was not an exclusive
property of the plaintiff. In support of his contention, he would
draw my attention to the sale agreement dated
01.11.1995(Ex.B.1). It can be seen therefrom that it was only
Thiru.Gurusamy, husband of the plaintiff who was a party to
the document. That would clearly show that only for the
purpose of Income Tax, the name of the mother was shown in
the sale deed dated 22.01.1996(Ex.A.1). He submitted that the
Courts below have completely ignored the legal effect of
Ex.B.1. He reiterated all the contentions set out in the
memorandum of grounds and called upon this Court to admit
the second appeal by framing the substantial question of law.
6. Per contra the learned counsel appearing for the
contesting respondents would submit that the impugned
Judgments do not call for any interference. He would submit
that the Courts below have correctly applied the principles of
law and that therefore, he wanted this Court to dismiss the
second appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
7 S.A.(MD)NO.820 OF 2014
7. I carefully considered the rival contentions and
went through the evidence on record.
8. The contest between the parties turns on the
validity of Ex.A.3 family arrangement dated 27.10.2000. The
appellants herein claim their rights only in terms of the said
family arrangement. According to them, the plaintiff, namely
Guru Meenakshi was a willing party to the family arrangement
and that on the ill advice of her daughters, she has done a
somersault. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel
appearing for the contesting respondents, Guru Meenakshi
was an illiterate woman. In Ex.A.3 she had affixed only her
thumb impression. It is true that the thumb impression of
Guru Meenakshi is not a forgery. The stand of Guru
Meenakshi was that she was induced to affix her thumb
impression on some representation and that she did not know
the contents of Ex.A.3.
9. A mere look at the deposition of D.W.2 Sudha
Anandhi would show that Guru Meenakshi would rarely
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
8 S.A.(MD)NO.820 OF 2014
venture out of the house. Ex.A.3 is also not a registered
document. When the plea of non est factum is put forth, the
burden to show that the document in question was voluntarily
executed falls entirely on the person who relies on the same.
The appellants herein rely on Ex.A.3. Therefore, it is entirely
their burden to show that Guru Meenakshi/plaintiff after being
appraised of the the contents of Ex.A.3 voluntarily affixed her
thumb impression. Neither D.W.2 nor D.W.3 are parties to
Ex.A.3. It was only D.W.1 who was party to Ex.A.3.
10. I went through the deposition of D.W.1
Muniyandi. Muniyandi has nowhere deposed that her mother
after being appraised of the contents of Ex.A.3, with full
knowledge, had affixed her thumb impression. There were
three attesting witnesses, namely, Shanmugam Ambalam,
Renganathan Ambalam and Posalan. None of the attesting
witnesses were examined. Therefore, the Courts below
applying the settled precedents rightly held that the
contesting defendants have not at all discharged the burden
cast on them.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
9 S.A.(MD)NO.820 OF 2014
11. That apart, the suit schedule property stood in the
name of Guru Meenakshi. Ex.A.1 is the sale deed standing in
her name. It is true that Ex.B.1, the sale agreement stood in
the name of Gurusamy, husband of Guru Meenakshi. Once the
sale agreement had culminated into a sale, it is only the sale
deed that will be taken note of and the earlier agreements will
have to be ignored. The Courts below have rightly held that as
per the provisions of the Benami Transactions(Prohibition)
Act, 1988, if a person out of love purchases a property in the
name of wife for her benefit, the property will be construed as
the absolute property of the wife.
12. Thus, looked at from any angle, I do not see any
substantial question of law arising for consideration in this
second appeal. The Courts below have correctly appreciated
the facts and applied the relevant principles of law.
13. The second appeal is dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
22.04.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
PMU
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
10 S.A.(MD)NO.820 OF 2014
Note: In view of the present lock down owing to
COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be
utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the
copy of the order that is presented is the correct
copy, shall be the responsibility of the
advocate/litigant concerned.
To:
1. The Sub Judge,
Devakottai.
2. The Principal District Munsif cum
Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi.
3. The Record Keeper, V.R.Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
11 S.A.(MD)NO.820 OF 2014
G.R.SWAMINATHAN,J.
PMU
S.A.(MD)No.820 of 2014
22.04.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
