Madras High Court
S.Sonachalam vs R.Kamaraj on 9 February, 2021
S.A.No.954 of 2009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 09.03.2021
PRONOUNCED ON:22.03.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAVINDRAN
S.A.No.954 of 2009
and
M.P.Nos.1 & 2 of 2009
S.Sonachalam,
Son of Sadhasivam Chettiar,
D.No.3, 1st Cross Street,
Maravaneri,
Salem 636 007. ... Appellant
Vs.
1. R.Kamaraj
Son of P.Ramasamy
2. S.Soundaram,
Wife of Late R.Shanmugam
3. Maheswari
Daughter of Late R.Shanmugham
4. Senthilkumar (Died)
Son of Late R.Shanmugham,
1/27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A.No.954 of 2009
Respondents 1 to 4 residing at
2/11, Ramasamy Chettiar Compound,
Nethimedu,
Salem-2.
[ R2 S.Soundaram as LR's of the
deceased 4th respondent vide
order of Court dated 09.02.2021.
Recorded in the memo SR.1174
dated 03.02.2016]
5. S.Sivananth,
Son of Sonachalam,
14/170, I Cross,
Lee Bazaar,
Salem 9.
6. S.Sivaraj,
Son of Sonachalam,
No.3, I Cross Street,
Marvaneri,
Salem 636 007. ... Respondents
Prayer:
Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C., against the
judgment and decree of the Learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Salem
dated 24.11.2006 made in A.S.No.138 of 2006 confirming the judgment ad
decree of the learned I Additional District Munsif of Salem dated
01.08.2005 made in O.S.No.1816 of 2004.
2/27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A.No.954 of 2009
For Appellant : Mr.J.Rama Krishnan
For R1 : Mr.V.Sekar
For R2 & R3 : S.Kalyanaraman
For R5 & R6 : P.Dinesh Kumar
R4 : Died
*****
JUDGMENT
Challenge in this second appeal is made to the judgment and decree
dated 24.11.2006 passed in A.S.No.138 of 2006 on the file of the Additional
Subordinate Court, Salem, confirming the judgment and decree dated
01.08.2005 passed in O.S.No.1816 of 2004 on the file of the Additional
District Munsif Court, Salem.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their
rankings in the trial court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A.No.954 of 2009
3. The second defendant in O.S.No.1816 of 2004 is the appellant in
this second appeal.
4. Suit for declaration and permanent injunction.
5. The case of the plaintiffs in brief is that the plaintiffs are entitled to
the suit properties by virtue of the partition deed dated 06.03.1986
whereunder, the plaintiffs had been allotted the B and C schedule
respectively and the patta also stands in the name of the plaintiffs
independently and the plaintiffs are enjoying the suit properties by paying
Kists etc., The suit properties belonged to the father of the plaintiffs,
P.Ramasamy Chettiar and in the year 1948, P.Ramasamy Chettiar, his
father and his brothers including the first defendant divided their family
properties and on 13.03.1955, the first defendant and his brother by name
Gnanam @ Gnana Sekaran executed a registered settlement deed in favour
of P.Ramasamy Chettiar and delivered the possession on the same date and
the settlement deed was acted upon and subsequently as above pointed out,
in the family partition effected between P.Ramasamy Chettiar and his sons,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A.No.954 of 2009
the suit properties had been allotted to the plaintiffs. The defendants are
strangers to the suit properties. The first defendant is the brother of the
plaintiffs' father. The second defendant is the son of P.Sadhasivam Chettiar,
the another brother of the plaintiffs' father. The defendants 3 and 4 are the
sons of the second defendant. The first defendant and Sadhasivam Chettiar
had divided their properties already in the year 1948 and Sadhasivam sold
his share of the properties and enjoying the profits of the same along with
his sons and grandsons. The first defendant is unmarried and he is under the
beck and call of SadhasivamChettiar's family. After the settlement deed
dated 13.03.1955, the first defendant ceased to have any right, interest or
possession over the suit properties. Gnanam @ Gnana Sekaran died long
back. At the instance of P.Sadhasivam, the first defendant has created a
false document styling it as cancellation of settlement deed on 29.05.1993 in
respect of the suit properties. In law, the settlement deed cannot be
cancelled and in the guise of the abovesaid cancellation deed, the
defendants attempted to interfere with the plaintiffs' possession and
enjoyment of the suit properties. Pending suit, the first plaintiff died and his
LR's had been brought on record as the plaintiffs 3 to 5. Pending suit, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A.No.954 of 2009
first defendant also died and hence according to the plaintiffs, they had been
necessitated to lay the suit against the defendants for appropriate reliefs.
6. The second defendant resisted the plaintiff's suit contending that
the suit laid by the plaintiffs is not maintainable either in law or on facts and
the suit for partition in O.S.No.466 of 1985 is pending on the file of the
Additional Subordinate Court, Salem, in which the plaintiffs herein are the
defendants 4 and 5 and the LRs of the first plaintiff had also been arrayed
as the parties in the abovesaid suit. The plaint is silent about the abovesaid
suit. The properties involved in O.S.No.466 of 1985 are unnecessarily
included in the present suit. One Ponnusamy Chettiar had four sons,
Sadhasivam, Ramasamy, Venkatraman, Gnanam @ Gnana Sekaran. The
plaintiffs have no right, title, interest or possession over the suit properties
and the alleged gift deed putforth by the plaintiffs dated 13.03.1955 is
invalid in law and not acted upon. The purpose of the gift deed which is
being a conditional one, accordingly not given effect to. The suit properties
have been enjoyed by the defendants as well as the plaintiffs as co-owners.
The rights of the parties could only be determined in O.S.No.466 of 1985.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A.No.954 of 2009
The case of the plaintiffs that the defendants attempted to interfere with
their possession qua the suit properties is totally false and hence the suit laid
by the plaintiffs being without any cause of action is liable to be dismissed.
7. The defendants 3 and 4 resisted the plaintiffs' suit contending that
it is false to state that the suit properties had been allotted to the plaintiffs
under the partition deed dated 06.03.1996. Ponnusamy Chettiar and his sons
partitioned the family properties by way of the partition deed in the year
1948. It is false to state that the first defendant and Gnanam @ Gnana
Sekaran executed a registered settlement deed in favour of P.Ramasamy
Chettiar qua the suit properties. Even if, any settlement deed alleged to
have been executed, it is not valid in law. The suit properties are shown as
the F schedule properties, which had been decided to be partitioned later by
Ponnusamy Chettiar and his sons in the year 1948. Therefore, no Will or
settlement could be effected by Ponnusamy Chettiar qua the ancestral
properties. The partition deed relied upon the plaintiffs is invalid in law.
The defendants are in the joint possession and enjoyment of the suit
properties. The gun powder business said to have been run by P.Ramasamy
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A.No.954 of 2009
Chettiar had been shifted to some other place and accordingly the object for
which the settlement deed dated 13.03.1955 was executed been over and
hence the first defendant had cancelled the same on 21.05.1993. The case
of the plaintiffs that the defendants endeavored to disturb their possession
and enjoyment of the suit properties is totally false and there is no cause of
action for the suit and the suit is liable to be dismissed.
8. In support of the plaintiffs' case, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined.
Exs.A1 to A70 were marked. On the side of the defendants, D.Ws.1 to 3
were examined. Exs.B1 to B12 were marked.
9. On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced
in the matter and the submissions putforth by the respective parties, the
Courts below were pleased to decree the suit in favour of the plaintiffs as
prayed for. Challenging the same, the second appeal has been preferred by
the second defendant.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A.No.954 of 2009
10. At the time of admission of the second appeal, the following
substantial questions of law was formulated for consideration.
Whether in law the interpretation upon Ex.A2 as
concluded by the Courts below are right in law and as such
the Ex.A2 and all other documents in pursuance of Ex.A2 is
binding on the appellant especially when all the joint family
members are not parties to Ex.A2?
11. From the pleas and materials putforth by the respective parties, in
support of their various contentions, it is noted that Ponnusamy Chettiar had
four sons namely Sadhasivam, Ramasamy,Venkatraman and Gnanam @
Gnana Sekaran. It is found that Ponnusamy Chettiar and his four sons had
divided the family properties by way of a partition deed dated 20.05.1948,
the copy of which has been marked as Ex.A1. On a perusal of Ex.A1, it is
found that after allotting the A to E schedules described in the partition deed
to the various sharers, the parties to the abvoesaid partition deed had
decided to keep the F schedule properties described in the abovesaid
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A.No.954 of 2009
partition deed in common amongst the sharers. The execution of Ex.A1
partition deed is not in dispute and the parties are also not in issue that the F
schedule properties described in Ex.A1 had been kept in common by
resolving that the same should be subsequently partitioned amongst the
family members.
12. The first defendant is the son of Ponnusamy Chettiar. The second
defendant is the grandson of Ponnusamy Chettiar born to his son
Sadhasivam. The defendants 3 and 4 are the sons of the second defendant.
The plaintiffs 1 and 2 are the grandsons of Ponnusamy Chettiar through his
son P.Ramasamy Chettiar. Now, as per the materials placed on record, it is
found that Ponnusamy Chettiar had executed a Will on 27.02.1955
bequeathing the shares allotted to him under Ex.A1 partition deed as well as
the properties described in the F schedule under Ex.A1 as the common
properties amongst his four sons and the abovesaid Will is the bone of
contention between the parties in the present litigation. Under the
abovesaid Will, Ponnusamy Chettiar had allotted the various the shares to
his four sons as detailed therein and following the execution of Ex.A2 Will,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A.No.954 of 2009
it is the case of the plaintiffs that the sons of Ponnusamy Chettiar had
approved and ratified the abovesaid Will by executing various documents
amongst themselves or in favour of third parties and therefore according to
them, though the F schedule properties covered in Ex.A1 had been kept in
common, it is their case that Ponnusamy Chettiar as the father of the family,
is entitled to partition the said properties by way of Ex.A2 Will and thus
according to them, though Ex.A2 is styled as a Will by Ponnusamy Chettiar,
it is in effect only a family arrangement or partition effected by the Kartha
of the family ie., Ponnusamy Chettiar and accordingly contended that as the
abovesaid partition effected by Ponnusamy Chettiar under Ex.A2, had been
ratified by his sons by executing various documents qua the properties
allotted to them under Ex.A2 and accordingly it is putforth that the suit
properties had been acquired by the plaintiff's father P.Ramasamy Chettiar
and in the family partition effected between his sons namely the plaintiffs,
the suit properties had come to be allotted to the plaintiffs. The partition
deed relied upon by the plaintiffs dated 06.03.1996 is marked as Ex.A9.
Thus according to the plaintiffs, they derived title to the suit properties
under Ex.A9 partition deed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A.No.954 of 2009
13. Inasmuch as, the second appeal revolves around the construction
of Ex.A2 as to whether the same is a Will or a family arrangement / partition
effected by Ponnusamy Chettiar, we will have to bestow the attention as
regards the construction of the abovesaid document as done by the Courts
below and adjudicate whether the determination of the Courts below that
Ex.A2, though styled as a Will, is only a partition effected by Ponnusamy
Chettiar as the karta of the family amongst his sons is correct and legally
sustainable.
14. From the available materials placed on record, it is found that the
first defendant who had been allotted a share under Ex.A2 along with his
brother Gnanam @ Gnana Sekaran are found to have executed a settlement
deed qua the properties allotted to them in favour of the plaintiffs' father
P.Ramasamy Chettiar. The plaintiffs' father P.Ramasamy Chettiar is also
one of the beneficiaries under Ex.A2. As rightly concluded by the Courts
below, thus on a perusal of the above settlement deed executed by the first
defendant and Gnanam @ Gnana Sekaran on 13.03.1955 marked as Ex.A3,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A.No.954 of 2009
it is evident that they had clearly admitted the validity of Ex.A2. Therefore,
by way of Ex.A2, as rightly concluded by the Courts below, the three sons
of Ponnusamy Chettiar had ratified Ex.A2.
15. The second defendant's father Sadhasivam is also found to have
ratified the same by executing an agreement on 16.05.1955 with reference to
the properties allotted to him under Ex.A2, with his brother Gnanam @
Gnana Sekaran and on a perusal of the abovesaid agreement dated
16.05.1955 marked as Ex.A4, as rightly concluded by the Courts below, the
second defendant's father had ratified the validity of Ex.A2 executed by his
father Ponnusamy Chettiar.
16. In addition to that, it is also noted that the second defendant's
father Sadhasivam Chettiar, the plaintiffs' father Ramasamy and the first
defendant had executed a release deed qua the properties allotted to them
under Ex.A2 in favour of Gnanam @ Gnana sekaran on 25.03.1963, the
copy of which release deed has been marked as Ex.A5 and as rightly
concluded by the Courts below, by way of Ex.A5, the release deed, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A.No.954 of 2009
executants of the same had ratified the authority/validity of Ex.A2 executed
by their father Ponnusamy Chettiar, even though the properties covered
under Ex.A2 are ancestral in nature.
17. Not stopping there, the second defendant's father Sadhasivam
Chettiar, who is a beneficiary under Ex.A2, had by way of a partition
effected with his sons on 04.06.1992 dealt with the properties allotted to
him under Ex.A2 and therefore, it is found that as rightly concluded by the
Courts below, the second defendant's father had partitioned even the
properties allotted to him under Ex.A2 along with his sons and the
abovesaid factum would only go to disclose that the second defendant had
accorded due acceptance and validity to Ex.A2.
18. Furthermore, the second defendant's brother Paramasivam, S/o,
Sadhasivam Chettiar had even alienated the properties allotted to him to the
plaintiffs' mother and also to Gnanam @ Gnana sekaran by way of the sale
deeds dated 14.04.1965 and 24.11.1966 which have been exhibited as
Exs.A7 and A8. The abovesaid documents would also fortify the case of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A.No.954 of 2009
plaintiffs that Ex.A2 had been acted upon throughout not only by the sons
of Ponnusamy Chettiar, but also by his grandsons. Later Gnanam @ Gnana
sekaran had alienated the properties purchased by him under Ex.A8 sale
deed to Govindhammal and thus it is found that the abovesaid document
also strengthens the acceptance, legality and authenticity of Ex.A2 by the
beneficiaries as determined by the Courts below.
19. In the light of the abovesaid position, though under Ex.A1
partition deed, the F schedule properties had been kept in common with the
determination to partition the same later, however, the karta of the family
namely Ponnusamy Chettiar had decided to bequeath the said properties
along with the properties allotted to him under Ex.A1 partition deed
amongst his sons under Ex.A2 and when it is noted that Ex.A2 executed by
Ponnusamy Chettiar had been ratified by his four sons as well as by his
grandsons and thereby the four sons of Ponnusamy Chettiar having
impliedly given their consent to Ponnusamy Chettiar in partitioning the F
schedule properties covered under Ex.A1. In such view of the matter, when
the karta of the family, has the undoubted right and privilege of effecting a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A.No.954 of 2009
partition of the ancestral properties amongst his sons with or without their
consent, when it is not projected or established that the partition effected
under Ex.A2 is not a fair one, all put together, the Courts below are found
to be justified in holding Ex.A2 as a deed of partition, though the same is
styled as a Will. In this connection, the Courts below have placed reliance
upon the decisions of our High Court reported in AIR [38] 1951 Madras,
506 [M/s. M.M.Meyyappa Chettiar Vs. Commissioner of Income tax
Madras ],wherein the position of law has been expatiated that the father has
the undoubted right and privilege to effect the partition of the family
properties between himself and his sons with or without their consent and
accordingly, the partition effected under Ex.A2 being fair and equal and as
abovenoted, being ratified by all the sons of Ponnusamy Chettiar, one way
or the other, resultantly, the Courts below are found to be justified in
holding that Ex.A2 is only a deed of partition effected by Ponnusamy
Chettiar dividing the ancestral properties along with his properties amongst
his four sons. The position of law rendered in the abovesaid decision qua
the entitlement of the father to effect a partition of the family properties has
been extracted below:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A.No.954 of 2009
“Under the Mitakshara law the father has the undoubted right and
privilege of effecting a partition between himself and his sons, whether they
are majors or minors without their consent. He may divide the properties
physically or may only bring about a division in status. This division may
be between himself and his sons or even between the sons inter se. The
partition so made, however, must, be fair and equal. If the partition is
unequal and unfair it is open to the sons if they are majors to repudiate the
partition, but if they are minors, it is open to them to avoid that partition
by appropriate proceedings after they attain majority. The partition
therefore will be good until it is set aside. It is not void and is not without
effect. This right of avoidance based on the inequality of the shares is a
personal right of the minors and can not be exercised by others. The power
is not a conditional power in the sense that if the condition of the partition
being fair and equal is not satisfied, the power ceases to have operative
force.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A.No.954 of 2009
20. In the light of the abovesaid position, the contention has been
putforth by the second defendant's counsel that by way of Ex.A2,
Ponnusamy Chettiar having dealt with the ancestral properties kept in
common under Ex.A1, hence according to him, as per law, since Ponnusamy
Chettiar is disentitled to Will the ancestral properties without the consent of
his sons, according to him, Ex.A2 is a invalid document. However as above
pointed out, as rightly held by the Courts below, though Ex.A2 is styled as a
Will, when infact, it is only a partition deed effected by Ponnusamy
Chettiar, dividing the ancestral properties amongst his four sons and when
the act of Ponnusamy Chettiar effecting the partition of the common
properties under Ex.A2 had been ratified by his sons in various ways as
above discussed, the Courts below are found to be justified in considering
and holding Ex.A2 as a deed of partition, and accordingly when the sons of
Ponnusamy Chettiar had derived right in praesenti to the various shares
allotted to them under Ex.A2, they are found to be entitled to deal with the
same, following Ex.A2 and therefore, the contention putforth by the second
defendant's counsel that the gift deed Ex.A3 dated 13.03.1955 having been
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A.No.954 of 2009
executed before the demise of Ponnusamy Chettiar, the same should be
considered as invalid, as such, cannot be countenanced. When it is found
that Ex.A2 though styled as a Will, is not really a testamentary instrument
executed by Ponnusamy Chettiar, but only a deed of partition effected by
him as the karta of the family allotting the various shares to his four sons, in
such view of the matter, the sons acquired right to the shares allotted to
them under Ex.A2 in praesenti and entitled to deal with the same as the
absolute owners thereof.
21. In the light of the abovesaid factors, the first defendant and
Gnanam @ Gnana Sekaran having executed Ex.A3 settlement deed in
favour of P.Ramasamy, thereafter they are found to be not entitled to revoke
the same. In such view of the matter, the alleged cancellation of the
settlement deed by the first defendant alone on 21.05.1993 marked as Ex.43,
as rightly held by the Courts below, the other settlor namely Ganam @ Gana
sekaran or his Lrs having not chosen to cancel the settlement deed and when
it is found that the first defendant had chosen to cancel the settlement deed
nearly 38 years after the execution of Ex.A3 and when the first defendant is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A.No.954 of 2009
disentitled to revoke the settlement deed after the execution of the same in
favour of P.Ramasamy and by way of the cancellation deed, the execution
of settlement deed having been admitted by the defendants one way or the
other and merely because the object of the settlement deed is over that alone
would not be a sound reason for cancelling the same, particularly by one of
the settlors, that too, after the gap of 38 years. Therefore the Courts below
are found to be justified in holding that the cancellation deed marked as
Ex.43 has no legal sanctity and would have no binding effect on the
plaintiffs. The contention putforth by the defendants that the settlement
deed had not been acted upon also cannot be accepted in any manner,
particularly when it is noted that Ex.A2 settlement deed had been executed
only to enable the plaintiffs' father Ramasamy to continue his gun powder
business, in such view of the matter, to say that it had been not acted upon
after 38 years, no prudent person would accept the abovesaid reason for
entitling the defendants to challenge the settlement deed on such untenable
grounds.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A.No.954 of 2009
22. When by way of Ex.A2, Ponnusamy Chettiar is found to have
partitioned the ancestral properties along with his properties to his four sons
and when as above pointed out, Ex.A2 has been rightly construed as only a
partition deed executed by Ponnusamy Chettiar and not a Will and when the
division of the ancestral properties effected by Ponnusamy Chettiar under
Ex.A2 having been ratified by his four sons, as above pointed, accordingly,
it is found that under Ex.A2, his sons had acquired right over their alleged
shares in praesenti and entitled to deal with the same in accordance with
law. Therefore, the argument cannot be putforth that Ex.A3 settlement
deed should be construed as invalid on the footing that it deals with the
ancestral properties. Though the ancestral properties had been dealt with
under Ex.A2 document, when by way of the same, Ponnusamy Chettiar had
allotted the properties to his sons fairly and thereby the sons getting right
over their alleged shares immediately pursuant to Ex.A2, as rightly held by
the Courts below, Ex.A3 settlement deed is found to be valid in all aspects
and binding on the parties concerned.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A.No.954 of 2009
23. As rightly determined by the Courts below, particularly the trial
court, though the defendants would contend that the plaintiffs are not the
owners of the suit properties and Ex.A2 had not been ratified by the sons of
Ponnusamy Chettiar, however considering the evidence of D.Ws.1 and 2 in
toto, when it is found that they would only plead complete ignorance about
the various documents executed by the sons of Ponnusamy Chettiar after
Ex.A2 and also not able to say anything about the entitlement of the first
defendant to cancel the settlement deed Ex.A3 under Ex.43, the Courts
below are found to be justified in also rejecting the defence version by
placing reliance upon their own evidence as detailed in the judgment.
24. In the light of the abovesaid discussions, when Ex.A2 is construed
as a partition deed effected by Ponnusamy Chettiar, the authorities putforth
by the plaintiffs' counsel that Ponnusamy Chettiar is not entitled to Will the
ancestral properties as per law, in my considered opinion, would not be
applicable to the case at hand. Though Ex.A2 is styled as a Will, however
the document could only be construed as a partition effected by Ponnusamy
Chettiar and the same having been ratified or approved by his sons, in such
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A.No.954 of 2009
view of the matter, the authorities relied upon by the second defendant's
counsel on the invalidity of the Will dealing with the ancestral properties
reported in 1980 Supplement SCC 298 [ Kalyani (Dead) by Lrs Vs.
Narayanan and others] and 1972 (4) SCC[ M.N.Aryamurthy and
another Vs. M.D.Subbaraya Setty (dead) through LR and others] are
found to be not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case at hand.
Further even in the 1st decision above referred to, it has been held that the
father has the right to make a partition by Will of the joint family properties,
provided the same is made with the consent of the joint family members.
25. For the proposition of law that the construction of document is a
substantial question of law, reliance is placed on the decision reported in
2000 (7) SCC 60 [Santakumari and others Vs. Lakshmi Amma Janaki
Amma (d) by Lrs and Others]. There is no dispute regarding the
abovesaid proposition of law.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A.No.954 of 2009
26. The second defendant's counsel also placed reliance upon the
decisions reported in CDJ 2018 MHC 414 [R.Manikandan Vs.
Arulmighu Koodamudayar Ayyanar Koil Through its Executive
Officer, Virudhunagar] and CDJ 2018 MHC 1275 [ Minor Shankar
represented by his mother Nallammal Vs. Muruganandam & Another].
The principles of law outlined in the abovesaid decisions are taken into
consideration and followed as applicable to the case at hand.
27. In view of the abovesaid factors, the interpretation of the Courts
below upon Ex.A2 as a deed of partition is right in law and even though the
sons of Ponnusamy Chettiar are not direct parties to Ex.A2, when the sons
of Ponnusamy Chettiar had ratified Ex.A2 by executing various documents,
as above pointed out and thereby admitted the validity of Ex.A2 executed
by their father, in such view of the matter, the determination of the Courts
below that Ex.A2 is binding on the second defendant and other defendants
do not warrant any interference.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A.No.954 of 2009
28. The reasonings and conclusions of the Courts below for
upholding the plaintiff's case being founded on the proper appreciation of
the materials placed on record both oral and documentary and particularly
based upon the proper interpretation and construction of Ex.A2 and when
they are not shown to be perverse, illogical and irrational, I do not find any
valid reason to interfere with the same. The substantial question of law
formulated in the second appeal is accordingly answered in favour of the
plaintiff and against the defendants.
29. In conclusion, the judgment and decree dated 24.11.2006 passed
in A.S.No.138 of 2006 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Court,
Salem, confirming the judgment and decree dated 01.08.2005 passed in
O.S.No.1816 of 2004 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court,
Salem are confirmed. Resultantly, the second appeal is dismissed with
costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions, if any, are closed.
22.03.2021
mfa
Index:yes
Internet:yes
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A.No.954 of 2009
To
1. The Additional Subordinate Judge,
Additional Subordinate Court,
Salem.
2.The Additional District Munsif,
Additional District Munsif Court,
Salem.
Copy to
The Section Officer,
VR Section,
High Court,
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A.No.954 of 2009
T.RAVINDRAN, J.
mfa
Pre-delivery judgment made in
S.A.No.954 of 2009
and
M.P.Nos.1 & 2 of 2009
22.03.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
