Madras High Court
B.Sathiyavathi vs Tamilselvan on 20 December, 2021
SA(MD)Nos.418 of 2016 & 730 of 2015
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATE: 20.12.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE V. BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN
SA(MD)Nos.418 of 2016 & 730 of 2015 &
MP(MD)No.1/2015 & CMP(MD)No.4773/2016
SA(MD)No.418 of 2016
B.Sathiyavathi ... Appellant
vs.
1.Tamilselvan
2.Boobalan
3.Ganesan
4.Narayanan ... Respondents
Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of CPC to set aside the
Judgment and decree in AS.No.111/2012 dated 01.11.2014 on the file of the
Sub Court, Sivagangai confirming the Judgment and decree in OS.No.
215/2010 dated 31.08.2012 on the file of the District Munsif Court,
Sivagangai.
For Appellant : Mr.J.Jeyakumaran
For Respondents : Mr.A.Arumugam
for M/s.Ajmal Associates
for R1 and R2
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
SA(MD)Nos.418 of 2016 & 730 of 2015
SA(MD)No.730 of 2015
1.Tamilselvan
2.Poobalan ... Appellants
vs.
1.Sathiyavathi
2.Ganesan
3.Narayanan ... Respondents
Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of CPC to set aside the
Judgment and decree in AS.No.105/2012 dated 01.11.2014 on the file of the
Sub Court, Sivagangai confirming the Judgment and decree in OS.No.
215/2010 dated 31.08.2012 on the file of the District Munsif Court,
Sivagangai.
For Appellant : Mr.A.Arumugam
for M/s.Ajmal Associates
For R1 : Mr.J.Jeyakumaran
COMMON JUDGMENT
The Second Appeal in S.A.(MD)No.418 of 2016 has been filed by the
Appellant / Plaintiff against the Judgment and Decree in A.S.No.111/2012,
dated 01.11.2014 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Sivagangai, by
confirming the Judgment and decree in O.S.No.215 of 2010, dated
31.08.2012, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Sivagangai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
SA(MD)Nos.418 of 2016 & 730 of 2015
2. The Second Appeal in S.A.(MD)No.730 of 2015 has been filed by
the Appellants / Defendants 1 and 2 against the Judgment and Decree in
A.S.No.105 of 2012, dated 01.11.2014 on the file of the Sub Court,
Sivagangai, confirming the Judgment and decree in O.S.No.215 of 2010,
dated 31.08.2012, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Sivagangai.
3. The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Trial
Court.
4. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, is as follows.
The suit items 1 to 12 belong to the husband of the plaintiff namely
Balasubramanian by way of registered sale deeds. Those properties were
his self acquired properties. The suit items 13 to 15 were assigned on the
husband of the plaintiff by an order dated 20.02.1987. The plaintiff is the
second wife of Balasubramanian. He executed settlement deed with regard
to suit properties and some other properties in plaintiff's favour on
17.02.2010. The plaintiff is in possession of the properties for more than
the prescriptive period and hence, she has perfected title to the suit
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
SA(MD)Nos.418 of 2016 & 730 of 2015
properties by way of adverse possession. The defendants 1 and 2 are the
sons of Balasubramanian through his first wife. The defendants 3 and 4 are
the uncles of defendants 1 and 2. In respect of the ancestral properties, a
suit in O.S.No.139 of 2009 is pending between Balasubramanian and
defendants 1 and 2. Due to the said enmity, the defendants 1 and 2 are
proclaiming that they are going to disturb the peaceful possession and
enjoyment of the suit properties by the plaintiff from 12.10.2010 onwards.
Hence, the plaintiff filed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction.
5. In the suit, the defendants 1 and 2 filed a written statement and the
brief facts are as follows.
(i) The suit item 1 was purchased by one Chinniah Pillai and his
brothers jointly. Chinniah Pillai is the father of the plaintiff's husband. The
claim of the plaintiff that the suit item 1 is her husband's self acquired
property is unsustainable. The husband of the plaintiff namely
Balasubramanian had two wives. The first wife was Poomayil. The
defendants 1 and 2, Kannathal and Indiradevi are the children of
Balasubramanian and Poomayil. Indiradevi died when she was a minor.
The plaintiff is the second wife of Balasubramanian and they have four
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
SA(MD)Nos.418 of 2016 & 730 of 2015
daughters and one son. The last daughter of the plaintiff alone is yet to be
married. For all the other daughters marriage was solemnized by the
plaintiff's husband and the defendants 1 and 2 from and out of the joint
family income. The husband of the plaintiff and the defendants 1 and 2 had
been enjoying the ancestral properties jointly till date through Chinniah
Pillai. The husband of the plaintiff in his capacity as father and guardian of
the defendants 1 and 2 and Kannathal, who were minors, had conducted two
suits in OS.No.81/1975 and OS.No.169/1977 in respect of A and C schedule
properties consisted in OS.No.136/2009. The husband of the plaintiff
derived the income from the said properties. When the defendants 1 and 2
attained majority, the husband of the plaintiff had entrusted the possession
of the said properties to them. It is from the income derived from the said
properties when the defendants 1 and 2 were minors, the income derived
from the ancestral properties and the income contributed by the labour of
the defendants 1 and 2, the husband of plaintiff has purchased the suit items
2 to 12. Hence, the suit items 2 to 12 were not the self acquired properties
of the husband of the plaintiff. The suit items 13 to 15 belong to one
Rajangam, who is the brother of Poomayil. The suit item 14 was purchased
by Rajangam from one Muthurakkuthevar vide sale deed dated 04.07.1970
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
SA(MD)Nos.418 of 2016 & 730 of 2015
and in the said sale deed, Balasubramanian affixed his signature as attesting
witness. Since, Rajangam died during settlement period, he could not
obtain patta for suit items 13 to 15. The said suit items 13 to 15 were
included in the will executed by Rajangam in favour of the defendants 1 and
2. Since the defendants 1 and 2 were minors, Balasubramanian cultivated
the said properties. By suppressing the above facts, Balasubramanian has
fraudulently got the assignment in respect of the suit items 13 to 15 in his
favour.
(ii) The suit properties and some other properties were purchased by
Balasubramanian from and out of the income derived from the ancestral
properties, he has no right to execute Inam Settlement Deed in favour of the
plaintiff. When a suit for partition was pending between Balasubramanian
and the defendants 1 and 2, Inam Settlement Deed was executed in a hurried
manner only to cheat the defendants 1 and 2. Based on the Inam Settlement
Deed, the plaintiff cannot claim any right over the properties. The
defendants 3 and 4 are no way connected to the suit properties and they are
residing in some other village, which is 30 Kms away from the suit
properties. The suit in OS.No.136/2009 pending on the file of the same
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
SA(MD)Nos.418 of 2016 & 730 of 2015
Court is not in respect of the ancestral properties and is only in respect of
the properties comprised in the Will executed by Rajangam and one
Soundaram.
(iii) The first defendant had filed a petition before Revenue Divisional
Officer, Sivagangai on 12.07.2010 for cancellation of the above said
assignment. The suit items 13 to 15 were continuously in possession and
enjoyment of the defendants 1 and 2 alone. The property in S.No.212/4A
belongs to Kannathal. The properties in S.No.245/2 and S.No.245/4 belong
to Thiruvupillai. The husband of the plaintiff has no right or title to execute
Inam Settlement Deed in favour of the plaintiff. Those properties were also
not shown as suit properties. Hence, they prayed for dismissal of the suit
with costs.
6. The brief averments made in the written statement filed by the
defendants 3 and 4 are as follows.
(i) The defendants 3 and 4 have no interests in the suit properties.
They are not at all connected to the suit properties and hence, the suit is bad
for mis-joinder of unnecessary parties and has to be dismissed on that count
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
SA(MD)Nos.418 of 2016 & 730 of 2015
alone. The third defendant is the father-in-law of Kannathal and the fourth
defendant is the father-in-law of the second defendant. They are residing 30
Kms away from the suit properties and they have no knowledge about the
dispute between the plaintiff and the defendants 1 and 2. Hence, they
prayed for dismissal of the suit as against them with exemplary costs.
7. Before the Trial Court, on the side of the plaintiff, PW1 and PW2
were examined and Exs.A1 to A36 were marked. On the side of the
defendants, DW1 to DW5 were examined and Exs.B1 to B38 were marked.
8. On the basis of the rival pleadings on either side, the learned
District Munsif, Sivagangai had framed necessary issues and after
evaluating both oral and documentary evidences, had decreed the suit in
part and declared that the suit items 1 to 12 belong to the plaintiff and she is
entitled to the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for in respect of the
suit items 1 to 12. The suit in respect of items 13 to 15 was dismissed.
9. Aggrieved by the Judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court,
the plaintiff filed an appeal in AS.No.111/2012 before the Subordinate
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
SA(MD)Nos.418 of 2016 & 730 of 2015
Court, Sivagangai to set aside the dismissal of the suit in respect of the suit
items 13 to 15 and the first and second defendants filed an appeal in AS.No.
105/2012 against the decreed portion of the suit. The Appellate Court after
hearing both sides and upon reappraising the evidences available on record,
has dismissed the appeals vide Judgment and decree dated 01.11.2014 and
confirmed the Judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court.
10. Challenging the Judgment and decree in AS(MD)Nos.111/2012,
the plaintiff has filed SA(MD)No.418/2016 and challenging the Judgment
and decree in AS(MD)No.105/2012, the first and second defendants have
filed SA(MD)No.730/2015.
11. This Court, while admitting the Appeals, framed the following
substantial questions of law, for consideration.
"(i) Whether the Settlement Deed Ex.A11 is valid
when there is no evidence and pleading and proof
whatsoever that the plaintiff husband independent source
of income to purchase the property covered under
Settlement Deed?
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
SA(MD)Nos.418 of 2016 & 730 of 2015
(ii) Whether the Courts below are legally right in
placing the burden of proof on the defendant, especially
when the Hindu law specifically states that the initial
presumption the property standing in the name of Hindu
father is the joint family property consisting of Hindu
father and his sons?
(iii) Whether the Judgment in OS.No.81/1975 and
OS.No.169/1977 will statutorily bar the defendant from
claiming any interest in the suit property especially when
the earlier suit was filed by the father ostensibly for the
benefit of the minors and in truth for the benefit of the
father?
(iv) Whether the failure of the Courts below to
frame property issues under Order 13 Rule 1 of CPC,
1908 has vitiated the Judgment of the trial Court?
(v) Whether the failure of the Courts below in
framing proper points for consideration has vitiated the
Judgment of the First Appellate Court under Order 41
Rule 31 of CPC, 1908?
(vi) Whether the Courts below are right in holding
that suit properties items 1 to 12 are the exclusive,
separate properties of father Balasubramanian is as a
result of admission of immaterial, irrelevant and
inadmissible evidence and rejection of relevant, material
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
SA(MD)Nos.418 of 2016 & 730 of 2015
and admissible evidence and whether such a legally
unacceptable perverse finding is liable to be set aside
under Section 100 of CPC, 1908?"
12. The learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff would submit that
the Courts below have not properly considered Ex.A6 and thereby,
dismissed the Suit in respect of 13, 14 and 15 schedule of property. The
Courts below failed to consider that 13, 14 and 15 schedule of properties
acquired by the plaintiff's husband by way of settlement issued by the
Special Tahsildar and in order to establish the same, the plaintiff marked
Ex.A6, Settlement Order in respect of Survey Nos.215/21, 348/11 and 228/4
and Exs.A7 and A8, which are tax receipts. The plaintiff had established
evidence before the trial Court that 13 to 15 schedule of properties are
settlement land and those properties are vested with the Government prior to
the order of settlement to the plaintiff's husband, but the Courts below have
failed to see that how the said lands were sold by Muthurakkuthevar in
favour of Rajangam. The trial Court erroneously come to a conclusion that
the 14th schedule of property belonged to the 1st and 2nd defendants and the
Courts below have not also assigned any valid reason for dismissing the suit
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
SA(MD)Nos.418 of 2016 & 730 of 2015
and as well the first appellate Court simply re-write the Judgment of the trial
Court.
13. The learned counsel appearing for the defendants 1 and 2 would
submit that the suit items 1 to 12 are joint family properties and the husband
of the plaintiff had no sufficient independent source of income to purchase
the suit items 1 to 12. Since, the suit items 1 to 12 are joint family
properties, the husband of the plaintiff cannot execute any Settlement Deed
in favour of the plaintiff and hence, Settlement Deed, Ex.A11 dated
17.02.2010 is invalid. The earlier suits filed by the husband of the plaintiff
as a guardian of the minors will not bind on the sons. He therefore, prayed
for reversing the decreetal order granted by both the Courts below in respect
of the suit items 1 to 12 in favour of the plaintiff.
14. This Court paid its anxious consideration to the rival submissions
made and also carefully perused the materials placed on record.
15. The case of the plaintiff is that the suit items 1 to 12 belonged to
the husband of the plaintiff namely Balasubramanian. Those properties were
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
SA(MD)Nos.418 of 2016 & 730 of 2015
his self acquired properties. The suit items 13 to 15 were assigned on the
husband of the plaintiff by an order dated 20.02.1987. The plaintiff is the
second wife of Balasubramanian. He executed settlement deed with regard
to suit properties and some other properties in plaintiff's favour on
17.02.2010. The plaintiff is in possession of the properties for more than
the prescriptive period and hence, she has perfected title to the suit
properties by way of adverse possession. The defendants 1 and 2 are the
sons of Balasubramanian through his first wife. The defendants 3 and 4 are
the uncles of defendants 1 and 2. In respect of the ancestral properties, a
suit in O.S.No.139 of 2009 is pending between Balasubramanian and
defendants 1 and 2.
16. The case of the defendants 1 and 2 is that suit item No.1 was
purchased by one Chinniah Pillai and his brothers jointly. Chinniah Pillai is
the father of the plaintiff's husband. The claim of the plaintiff that the suit
item 1 is her husband's self acquired property is unsustainable. The husband
of the plaintiff had two wives. The first wife was Poomayil. The
defendants 1 and 2, Kannathal and Indiradevi were the children of
Balasubramanian and Poomayil. Indiradevi died when she was a minor.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
SA(MD)Nos.418 of 2016 & 730 of 2015
The plaintiff is the second wife of Balasubramanian and they have four
daughters and one son. The last daughter of the plaintiff alone is yet to be
married. For all the other daughters marriage was solemnized by the
plaintiff's husband and the defendants 1 and 2 from and out of the joint
family income. The husband of the plaintiff and the defendants 1 and 2 had
been enjoying the ancestral properties jointly till date through Chinniah
Pillai. The husband of the plaintiff in his capacity as father and guardian of
the defendants 1 and 2 and Kannathal, who were minors, had conducted two
suits in OS.No.81/1975 and OS.No.169/1977 in respect of A and C schedule
properties consisted in OS.No.136/2009. It is the further case of the
defendants 1 and 2 that the husband of the plaintiff derived income from the
said properties. When the defendants 1 and 2 attained majority, the husband
of the plaintiff had entrusted the possession of the said properties to them.
It is from the income derived from the said properties when the defendants 1
and 2 were minors, the income derived from the ancestral properties and the
income contributed by the labour of the defendants 1 and 2, the husband of
plaintiff has purchased suit items 2 to 12. Hence, the suit items 2 to 12 were
not the self acquired properties of the husband of the plaintiff.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
SA(MD)Nos.418 of 2016 & 730 of 2015
17. The suit items 13 to 15 belonged to one Rajangam, who is the
brother of Poomayil. The suit item 14 was purchased by Rajangam from
one Muthurakkuthevar, vide sale deed dated 04.07.1970 and in the said sale
deed, Balasubramanian affixed his signature as attesting witness. Since,
Rajangam died during settlement period, he could not obtain patta for suit
items 13 to 15. The said suit items 13 to 15 were included in the Will
executed by Rajangam in favour of the defendants 1 and 2. Since the
defendants 1 and 2 were minors, Balasubramanian cultivated the said
properties. By suppressing the above facts, Balasubramanian has
fraudulently got the assignment in respect of the suit items 13 to 15 in his
favour. Since the suit properties and some other properties were purchased
by Balasubramanian from and out of the income derived from the ancestral
properties, he has no right to execute Inam Settlement Deed in favour of the
plaintiff. When a suit for partition was pending between Balasubramanian
and the defendants 1 and 2, Inam Settlement Deed was executed in a hurried
manner only to cheat the defendants 1 and 2. Based on the Inam Settlement
Deed, the plaintiff cannot claim any right over the properties. The
defendants 3 and 4 are no way connected to the suit properties and they are
residing in some other village, which is 30 Kms away from the suit
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
SA(MD)Nos.418 of 2016 & 730 of 2015
properties. The suit in OS.No.136/2009 pending on the file of the same
Court is not in respect of the ancestral properties and is only in respect of
the properties comprised in the Will executed by Rajangam and one
Soundaram. The first defendant had filed a petition before Revenue
Divisional Officer, Sivagangai, on 12.07.2010 for cancellation of the above
said assignment. The suit items 13 to 15 were continuously in possession
and enjoyment of the defendants 1 and 2 alone. The property in S.No.
212/4A belongs to Kannathal. The properties in S.No.245/2 and S.No.245/4
belong to Thiruvupillai.
18. According to the defendants 3 and 4, they have no interest in the
suit properties. They are not at all connected to the suit properties and
hence, the suit is bad for mis-joinder of unnecessary parties and has to be
dismissed on that count alone. The third defendant is the father-in-law of
Kannathal and the fourth defendant is the father-in-law of the second
defendant. They are residing 30 Kms away from the suit properties and they
have no knowledge about the dispute between the plaintiff and the
defendants 1 and 2.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
SA(MD)Nos.418 of 2016 & 730 of 2015
19. The undisputed facts are that the husband of the plaintiff had two
wives. The first wife was Poomayil. The defendants 1 and 2, Kannathal
and Indiradevi were the children of Balasubramanian, through his first wife.
Indiradevi died when she was minor. The plaintiff is the second wife of
Balasubramanian and they have four daughters and one son. The
defendants 3 and 4 are the uncles of defendants 1 and 2. Chinniah Pillai is
the father of the plaintiff's husband.
20. Ex.A11 is the settlement deed, dated 17.02.2010. A perusal of
Ex.A11 would show that it was executed by one Balasubramanian in favour
of the plaintiff. It was contested by the defendants 1 and 2, who are sons of
Balasubramanian stating that those properties were purchased from and out
of the income derived from the joint family nucleus. Further, the Suit Item
13 to 15 were the properties inherited by them through one Rajangam, who
is their maternal uncle by way of Registered Will. Therefore, the husband
of the plaintiff has no right at all to convey those properties to the plaintiff
by executing Inam Settlement Deed. In a catena of decisions this Court as
well as the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that under the Hindu Law mere
living together of the members of the family will not make them joint
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
SA(MD)Nos.418 of 2016 & 730 of 2015
owners of properties acquired by each individual member. There must have
been a nucleus of ancestral property, which was utilised for the purpose of
making the subsequent acquisitions or the members must have thrown their
joint earnings into hotchpot with the intention of giving up their individual
rights in them.
21. The properties have been purchased from the income of the
plaintiff and it cannot be treated as joint family properties, unless and until
it is established that income of the joint family properties was utilised for
acquiring the property. The presumption of law is that mere living together
as members of a family will not make them joint owners of properties
acquired by each individual member. There must have been a nucleus of
ancestral property which was utilised for the purpose of making the
subsequent acquisitions. A perusal of the documents would show that the
said properties were purchased in the individual capacity of the husband of
the plaintiff. Hence, there is no presumption that the suit properties were
purchased from the income derived from the joint family properties. The
defendants 1 and 2 failed to discharge the burden of joint family nucleus
through which, their father purchased the property. The defendants 1 and 2
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
SA(MD)Nos.418 of 2016 & 730 of 2015
had not proved their case by letting in evidence to establish that the
properties are joint family properties. The defendants 1 and 2 were not in a
position to file any document to prove that it is a joint family property,
except the oral evidence and the income from the joint family properties
were surplus and the father was able to purchase the properties. The
properties were purchased in the name of the father and at that point of time,
the defendants 1 and 2 were minors and they were not in a position to prove
that their father utilized their labour to purchase the suit properties.
22. It is seen that, from the year 2003, there was dispute between the
father and the defendants 1 and 2. Only oral evidence was let in to prove
the same. In such circumstances, the defendants 1 and 2 failed to prove that
they have contributed physical labour and out of which, the suit properties
were purchased and a mere submission is unacceptable. The plaintiff was
able to prove that her husband was doing various business in the form of
Paddy Commission Mandi, Fire Wood business and contract business
through Exs.A17 Ex.A21. A perusal of those documents would show that
the plaintiff had surplus income to purchase the suit items 1 to 12. The Trial
Court as well as Appellate Court had also gone into this aspect in detail and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
SA(MD)Nos.418 of 2016 & 730 of 2015
held that the suit items 1 to 12 are properties purchased from the individual
income of the husband of the plaintiff. Further, there is no evidence
adduced that the husband of the plaintiff had voluntarily blended those
properties with the joint family properties with a view to mix those
properties as common stock. The defendants 1 and 2 ought to prove their
claim that they had contributed physical labour and out of that income, the
suit properties were purchased, however, it is not clear what sort of labour
the defendants 1 and 2 engaged and thereby, how much income they
contributed to the joint family. In the light of the above facts, this Court has
no hesitation to come to a conclusion that the Suit Item Nos.1 to 12 are the
individual and separate properties of the husband of the plaintiff.
23. Ex.B13, is the Sale Deed. A perusal of Ex.B13 would show that it
was in the name of maternal uncle of the defendants 1 and 2 viz., Rajangam.
It is the case of the defendants 1 and 2 that by way of Ex.B13, Rajangam
had purchased the Suit Item No.14 from one Muthurakku Thevar
S/o.Kalimuthu Thevar. In Ex.B1 entry is in the name of Muthurakku Thevar
S/o.Kalimuthu Thevar, in respect of Pimass No.48, which was correlated to
S.No.348/11, which is the suit Item No.14. Hence, perusal of Ex.B1 and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
SA(MD)Nos.418 of 2016 & 730 of 2015
Ex.B13 would go to show that the suit item No.14 is the property purchased
by Rajangam. The subsequent classification of the said land as Government
vacant site might be due to the reason that the title holder due to his
indisposed state of health could not appear and claim patta in respect of the
said land. One Balasubramanian S/o.Chinniah of Siruvelangudi Village
with the very same name and address of the plaintiff's husband attested the
sale deed in favour of the said Rajangam. By suppressing those facts, the
husband of the plaintiff obtained assignment order in his favour. The
property in Item No.14, being the property of Rajangam and subsequently,
bequeathed by way of Will to benefit of the minor children of the husband
of the plaintiff viz., defendants 1 and 2, the assignment order in respect of
the said property in the name of the husband of the plaintiff cannot be
sustained. Hence, the settlement deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect
of Suit Item Nos.13 to 15 cannot be sustained.
24.As far as the contention of the defendants 1 and 2 that the husband
of the plaintiff in his capacity as father and guardian of the defendants 1 and
2 and Kannathal, who were minors, had conducted two suits in OS.No.
81/1975 and OS.No.169/1977 and from the income derived from the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
SA(MD)Nos.418 of 2016 & 730 of 2015
ancestral properties, the husband of plaintiff had purchased suit items 1 to
12 and hence, the property acquired by the husband of the plaintiff is not the
self acquired properties is concerned, from the entire documents adduced on
the side of the defendants 1 and 2, this Court unable to accept such
contentions, as there is no reliable materials adduced by them in respect of
their contentions. Accordingly, the substantial questions of law are
answered.
25. For the reasons aforesaid, this Court is of the considered view that
no interference is called for in the well considered judgments and decrees
rendered by the Courts below and accordingly, the Second Appeals fail and
the same stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected
Miscellaneous Petitions are also dismissed.
20.12.2021
Index: Yes/No.
Internet: Yes/No.
mbi
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
SA(MD)Nos.418 of 2016 & 730 of 2015
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 Subordinate Court,
Sivagangai
2. The District Munsif Court,
Sivagangai.
3. The Record Keeper,
VR Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
SA(MD)Nos.418 of 2016 & 730 of 2015
V. BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN, J.
mbi
SA(MD)Nos.418 of 2016 & 730 of 2015
20.12.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
