Madras High Court
Ravi vs Govindammal on 23 August, 2021
C.M.S.A.No.20 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON: 20.06.2022
PRONOUNCED ON: 28.06.2022
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Ms.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA
C.M.S.A.No.20 of 2015
Lakshmi Ammal (died)
1. Ravi
2. Babu
(Appellants 1 and 2 brought on record as
LRs of the deceased viz., Lakshmi Ammal
vide Court ordre dated 23.08.2021 made in
C.M.P.No.9808, 9811, 9799 and 9816 of 2021) ... Appellants
Vs
Ammayee Ammal (Died)
1. Govindammal
2. Dhanam Ammal
3. Bankaru Ammal
4. The Secretary,
Agriculture Co-operative Bank,
Mangalampet, Virudhachalam Taluk,
Cuddalore District.
5. The Manager,
Central Co-operative Bank,
Mangalampet,
Virudhachalam Taluk,
Cuddalore District.
1/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.S.A.No.20 of 2015
6. The Post Master,
Post Office,
Thirupapuliyur Post Office,
Cuddalore District ... Respondents
PRAYER : This Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal is filed under
Section 372 of the Hindu Succession Act, read with 100 of Code of Civil
Procedure, against the decree and judgment dated 28.04.2015 passed in
C.M.A.No.50 of 2011 on the file of the III Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Cuddalore at Virudhachalam confirming the decree and
judgment dated 19.04.2011 passed in S.O.P.No.41 of 2006 on the file of
the Subordinate Judge, Virudhachalam, Cuddalore District.
For Appellants : Mr.M.Muruganantham
For Respondents 1 to 3 : Ms.R. Meenal
For Respondent-4 : Ms.T.Girija
For Respondent-5 : Mr.R.Arumugam
For Respondent-6 : Mr.A.Veeramani
JUDGMENT
The legal heirs of the deceased petitioner in a succession O.P are
the appellants herein before this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.S.A.No.20 of 2015
2. The facts in brief are as follows:-
(i) The petitioner had filed S.O.P.No.41 of 2016 on the file of
the Principal Subordinate Court, Virudhachalam for issuance of a
succession certificate in respect of the deposits lying with respondents 5
to 7.
(ii). It is the case of the petitioner that besides her, her father
Perumal Chettiar had 3 other daughters, who had been arrayed as
respondents 2 to 4. The first respondent is the mother of the petitioner
and the respondents 2 to 4 and the wife of Perumal Chettiyar. The
petitioner would submit that her father had various deposits with
respondents 5 to 7-Banks and that every time the deposits matured, her
father was in habit of renewing the same. On 21.04.2001, he had died
and after his death, his legal heirs have been renewing the deposits.
(iii) While so, the petitioner came to learn that the first
respondent has unilaterally taken a sum of Rs.27,00,000/- from the said
deposits. The petitioner would submit that she is entitled to a 1/4th share
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.S.A.No.20 of 2015
in the said deposits. Therefore, she had come forward to file the above
mentioned succession O.P. seeking for the grant of a succession
certificate for receiving her 1/4th share from respondents 5 to 7.
3. The respondents 1 to 4 had filed a common counter in
succession O.P, in which, they had contended that as on the date of filing
of the succession O.P., no amounts were available with the respondents 5
to 7-Banks. Further, even when Perumal Chettiyar was alive, he had
transferred the deposits in the name of his wife, the first respondent and
therefore, the contention of the petitioner that the amounts were being
renewed by the legal heirs is far from the truth. They therefore sought
for dismissal of the above succession O.P.
4. The 7th respondent had filed a counter, inter alia contending
that the petitioner has impleaded the wrong authority and any petition
against the Postal Department in the District has to be filed against the
Superintendent and in the national arena, it has to be the Secretary,
whereas the petitioner has impleaded the Post Master. The deposits are
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.S.A.No.20 of 2015
standing in the name of the first respondent and the petitioner has no
right to claim a share in the said deposits. Further, the petitioner's father
had died as early as on 12.04.2001 and it only nearly 6 years later that the
petitioner has filed this succession O.P. They had contended that only 6
deposits, totalling a sum of Rs.46,000/- was available with the seventh
respondent.
5. The fourth respondent had filed an additional counter,
wherein, they had contended that the deposits listed in serial numbers 1
to 22 were not in the name of the first respondent. The details of the
deposits with the fifth respondent-Bank and its amounts are all wrong.
The first respondent has not received any amounts unilaterally from the
sixth respondent. That apart, all the amounts, which are described in the
schedule to the amended petition, are amounts not standing in the name
of Perumal Chettiar. Therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to claim
or any right over the same. They had sought for dismissal of the said
succession O.P.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.S.A.No.20 of 2015
6. The learned District Judge, Virudhachalam, on considering
the pleadings, had raised the following points for consideration:
(i) Whether the petitioner is entitled to the
succession certificate?
(ii) What are the other reliefs available for the
petitioner?
7. The petitioner has examined herself as P.W1 and marked
Exs.R1 and R2. On the side of the respondents, the third respondent has
examined herself as R.W1 and one Gunasekaran, the Public Relation
Officer of the Postal Department has been examined as R.W2 and Exs.R1
to R5 were marked and that apart, Court Exhibits 1 to 4 were marked.
8. Ultimately, the learned Principal Subordinate Judge,
Virudhachalam, after considering the evidence, had dismissed the
succession O.P. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner had filed
C.M.A.No.50 of 2011 on the file of the District Court, Cuddalore. The
learned Judge also dismissed the appeal, confirming the judgment and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.S.A.No.20 of 2015
decree of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Virudhachalam.
9. Challenging the same, the appellants are before this Court.
10. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that no
cogent reasons have been given for rejection of her claim. The
reasonings given by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, in his
judgment that the petitioner has not provided the connecting documents
to show that the deposits which stood in the name of Perumal Chettiar is
the one that has been transferred in the name of the first respondent is
without any basis. The learned counsel would draw the attention of the
Court to the report filed by the fifth respondent-Bank, wherein, the fifth
respondent had stated that the said Perumal Chettiar, by his letter dated
15.05.1999 has requested the Bank to include the name of his wife, the
first respondent along with him. The report further states that the said
Perumal Chettiar has deposited in 13 fixed deposits and it was made in
the name of Perumal Chettiar along with his wife, Ammayee Ammal in
an either or survivor account. The learned counsel would submit that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.S.A.No.20 of 2015
despite providing this link between the deposits made by Perumal
Chettiar and the deposits now standing in the name of his wife,
Ammayee Ammal, the Courts below have totally been misguided into
holding that the appellants have not produced any proof for the same.
11. The learned counsel for the appellants would draw the
attention of the Court to the order passed by the Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Cuddalore in C.C.No.27 of 2009 dated 30.11.2010,
where the sixth respondent had filed a counter stating that the
complainants therein were attempting to cheat the legal heirs of the
amounts standing in the name of Perumal Chettiar under the Employment
Related Security (ERS) Scheme. Having taken this sand before the
Consumer Court, the respondents have come forward with a different
defence in the succession O.P. As rightly pointed out by the learned
counsel for the respondents, these documents have not been filed before
the Courts below and therefore, no reliance can be placed on the same.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.S.A.No.20 of 2015
12. Ms.R.Meenal, learned counsel appearing for the respondents
1 to 3 would submit that the amounts have been transferred in the name
of the deceased Ammayee Ammal /first respondent in succession O.P
even during the life time of Perumal Chettiar. The amounts standing to
the credit of these deposits are all self-acquired properties of the
deceased Perumal Chettiar and since even during his life time he had
deposited the amounts in the name of his wife Ammayee Ammal she
becomes the absolute owner of these deposits. She would draw the
attention of the Court to the counter filed by the sixth respondent,
wherein, they have stated that the amounts standing in the name of the
deceased Ammayee Ammal belong to her absolutely and that the claim
has been made nearly 6 years after the death of the said Perumal Chettiar.
The sixth respondent had produced the original deposit receipts, which
would clearly show from the year 2005-2006, these amounts have been
standing in the name of Ammayee Ammal, even before the filing of the
succession O.P. The deposit receipts would clearly show Ammayee
Ammal as the first named person and the accounts are shown to be an
either or survivor account. As on date, there are no deposits standing in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.S.A.No.20 of 2015
the name of Ammayee Ammal and Perumal Chettiar with respondents 4
to 6 herein. Therefore, she would contend that there is no cause of action
for filing the suit and further it is hopelessly barred by limitation.
13. Heard the learned counsel on both sides and perused the
materials available on record.
14. The appellants have come forward with the case that the
schedule mentioned deposits were standing in the name of Perumal
Chettiar and since these amounts belong to Permal Chettiar, on his death,
the amounts would fall to the share of his legal heirs equally. The
petitioner-deceased Lakshmi Ammal, in her petition, has stated as
follows:-
"nkw;go bgUkhs; brl;oahh; fle;j 21/04/2001 njjpapy;
,we;J nghdhh;/ nkw;go bgUkhs; brl;oahhpd; ,wg;g[
rhd;wpjiHa[k; kDjhuh; ,j;Jld; jhf;fy; bra;Js;shh;/ nkw;go
bgUkhs; brl;oahh; ,we;j gpwF mtUila kidtpahd 1k;
vjph;kDjhuUk; Fkhuj;jpfshd kDjhuUk; kw;Wk; 2.3.4
vjphpkDjhuh;fSk; tpUj;jhryk; tl;llhl;rpahplk; 10/07/2001
njjpapy; thhpRr; rhd;wpjH; bgw;whh;fs;/ 1k; vjph;kDjhuh; bgUkhs;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.S.A.No.20 of 2015
brl;oahh; blghrpl; bra;j bjhiffis Kjph;t[ mile;jt[ld;
kPz;Lk; blghrpl; bra;J gpd;dpl;L tpfpjhr;rug;go mile;J
bfhs;syhk; vd bjhptpj;J bra;j bjhiffis mt;tg;bghGJ
kDjhuh;fs; kw;Wk; 1 Kjy; 4 vjphpkDjhuh;fspd; rk;kjj;jpd;
nghpy; kPz;Lk; g[jpajhf blghrpl; bra;ag;gl;lJ/"
15. Therefore, it is contention of the appellants that the amounts
have been re-deposited in the name of the deceased Ammayee Ammal
with the express consent of the petitioner as well as the respondents 1 to
3 herein. However, to substantiate the above statement, the petitioner
has not let in either an oral evidence or documentary evidence. However,
the records and the evidence would show that even during the life time of
Perumal Chettiar, he has deposited these amounts in the name of his
wife. That being the case, it is only the deceased Ammayee Ammal, who
has any right to the amounts found therein.
16. R.W1 has clearly deposed that the amounts lying to the
credit of the deposits where the exclusive property of the first
respondent. R.W1, who is none other than the second respondent herein,
has further stated that the first respondent was possessed of 37 acres of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.S.A.No.20 of 2015
land and was therefore self-sufficient. The evidence of R.W1 has not
been countered by the petitioner-Lakshmi Ammal and further no contra
evidence has been elicited from her. The petitioner in one place would
state that the deposits stood in the name of the deceased Ammayee
Ammal with the consent of the petitioner and respondents 1 to 3 herein
but on the other hand would state that the amounts have been
surreptitiously transferred in the name of the deceased Ammayee Ammal.
Therefore, the appellants have not come to Court with a definite case.
The respondents have also stated that no amounts are due from
respondents 4 to 6. This Court is bereft of a cause of action and appears
to be a frivolous and a vexatious litigation. Therefore, I see no reason to
interfere with the judgment and decree of the Courts below and further,
the appellant had not made out any question of law to engage the
attention of this Court. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Second
Appeal is dismissed. No costs.
.06.2022
Index:Yes / No
Speaking Order : Yes/No
srn
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.S.A.No.20 of 2015
To
1. The III Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Cuddalore,Virudhachalam
2. The Subordinate Judge, Virudhachalam, Cuddalore District.
3. The Section Officer, V.R.Section High Court, Madras
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.S.A.No.20 of 2015
P.T.ASHA, J.,
srn
C.M.S.A.No.20 of 2015
28.06.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
