T.Boopathi vs K.Thiruvengadam (Died)
2021 Latest Caselaw 1561 Mad

                                                                             S.A.No.1173 of 2005

                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                     JUDGMENT RESERVED ON           : 17.03.2021

                                     JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON         : 23.03.2021

                                                         CORAM

                                   THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN

                                               S.A.No.1173 of 2005


                     1.T.Boopathi
                     2.T.Kumar                                                     ... Appellants

                                                     ...Versus...


                     1.K.Thiruvengadam (Died)
                     2.K.Varadharajan
                     3.K.Manavalan
                     4.Kanagammal
                     [R4 brought on record as L.R's of the
                     deceased 1st respondent viz.,K.Thiruvengadam
                     vide order of Court dated 25.01.2021 made in
                     C.M.P.No.6896/2020 in S.A.No.1173/2005(TKRJ)]            ... Respondents


                     PRAYER:This Second Appeal has been filed under Section 100 of C.P.C.,

                     against the judgment and decree in A.S.No.167 of 1999 dated

                     13.08.2004 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast

                     Track Court No.I, Chennai, confirming the judgment and decree made in

                     O.S.No.3732 of 1996 dated 17.11.1998 on the file of the VII Assistant

                     Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.




                     1/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
                                                                                    S.A.No.1173 of 2005

                                   For Appellants   ::       Mr.C.Kulanthaivel
                                   For R1           ::       Died
                                   For R2&R3        ::       M/s.R.T.Shyamala
                                   For R4           ::       M/s.Reshmi Christy



                                                         JUDGMENT

The unsuccessful plaintiffs are the appellants herein.

2. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred as per

ranking before the trial Court.

3. The appellants/plaintiffs filed a suit for partition seeking 6

and 12 shares respectively in the schedule properties. The plaintiffs are

the sons of the first defendant-Thiruvengadam filed the suit in

O.S.No.3732/1996 seeking share in the property in Item Nos.1&2 of the

schedule suit properties.

4.The plaint proceeds, on the premise that the Item Nos.1&2 of

the properties are purchased from and out of the ancestral nucleus

obtained by selling the ancestral property in Survey No.486/4 and

therefore they are entitled for a share since his father first defendant is

having a strained relationship with the mother of the plaintiff,

Kanagammal, and she filed a suit for maintenance taking advantage of

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ S.A.No.1173 of 2005

the strained relationship between the father and mother of the plaintiff,

the second defendant, paternal uncle-younger brother of the first

defendant has taken a major share in the suit property leaving a small

portion of the first defendant and hence the suit.

5. Pre suit, notice were issued under Exhibits A3 to A6. The

defendants 1&2 filed a common written statement denying the right of

the plaintiff inter-alia contended that Ganapathy Naicker and his sons

Kuppuswamy Naicker and Manavala Naicker never had any ancestral

property as pleaded in the plaint. As per Ex.A1 Sale Deed Kuppuswamy

Naicker has purchased the property from and out of his self-earning and

the same is self-acquired property of Kuppuswamy Naicker. On his death,

the widow and the two sons namely Thiruvengadam and Varadharajan-

defendants 1&2 have partitioned in the property wherein

Thiruvengadam-the first defendant, father of the plaintiff was allotted

1201 sq.ft in Item No.1 of the property and balance being allotted to the

second defendant and the plaintiffs who are the sons of the first

defendant Thiruvengadam at the instigation has filed a false case

claiming partition to crab the property.

6. Before the trial Court, the plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 and

the maternal grant father Govindaraj Naicker was examined as P.W.2 and

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ S.A.No.1173 of 2005

mother of the plaintiff of the first plaintiff -Kanagammal was examined

as P.W.3 and Exhibits A1 to A6 were marked. The first defendant was

examined as D.W.1 and D.W.2 is the third defendant/Manavalan who is

the brother of the Kuppusamy (younger grandfather/Junior grandfather of

the plaintiff) and marked Exs.B1 -Encumbrance Certificate and Exs.B2

and B3.

7. Both the Courts below has held that the plaintiff has miserably

failed to show and demonster their exist ancestral property in Survey

No.486/4 in the Ukkotai native village and from and out of the sale of

that property this suit property was purchased. Accordingly, dismissed

the suit. So is the appeal and hence, the Second Appeal.

8. The above Second Appeal was admitted on 21.10.2005 on the

following Substantial Questions of Law:-

1. Whether the decree and judgment of the Courts below in not granting a share to the appellants with respect to the suit items is legally sustainable inasmuch as the suit first item of the property admittedly has been purchased by the grandfather of the appellants?

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ S.A.No.1173 of 2005

2. Whether the judgment and decree of the Courts below in stating that the partition took place pursuant to Ex.A2 is legally sustainable inasmuch as no proper share was allotted to the father of the appellants?

3. Whether the judgment and decree of the Courts below in coming to the conclusion that the suit second item is not joint property and the same has been allotted to the third respondent herein in oral partition by the grandfather of the appellants is legally sustainable inasmuch as there in no evidence for oral partition?

4. Whether the judgment and decree of the Courts below is legally sustainable inasmuch as it has caused the onus of proving the nature of the property on the appellants when especially Ex.A1 stands in the name of grandfather of the appellants?"

9. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants.

10(a).The learned counsel for the appellant argued that based

upon the evidence of P.W.2 Govindaraj Naicker, maternal grandfather of

the plaintiff and also the answer elicited from the cross-examination of

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ S.A.No.1173 of 2005

D.W.2 Manavalan, third defendant who is the brother of the Kuppuswamy

(paternal grandfather of the plaintiff).

(b) The relationship between the parties are the plaintiffs 1&2

are the sons of the first defendant Thiruvengadam. The second

defendant is the brother of the first defendant. The third defendant is the

brother of the grandfather of the plaintiff.

11. During the pendency of the Second Appeal, the first

defendant/first respondent Thiruvengadam died and hence his wife and

brother sons are become L.Rs. Since sons are already arrayed as

appellants hence widow is impleaded as 4th respondent represented by

the Advocate M/s.Reshmi Christy and represented by M/s.R.T.Shyamala

on behalf of R2 and R3.

12. The learned counsel for the plaintiff/appellant could contend

that there was an ancestral property available in the hands of the

grandfather of the plaintiff viz., Kuppuswamy. Kuppuswamy and the third

defendant/Manavalan are brothers that they are sold the property in

Survey No.486/4 in the village in Sriperumbudhur Taluk and from and

out of the sale proceeds of the said property, they have said to have

purchased Item No.I of the suit property which is a vacant site in West

Mambalam, Chennai.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ S.A.No.1173 of 2005

13. According to the plaintiff's counsel on the death of the

Kuppuswamy, the widow and the defendants 1&2 Thiruvengadam and

Varadharajan have entered into a partition under Exhibit A2 on

26.06.1992 whereby a small extent of under 1201 sq.ft alone was

allowed to the share of the first defendant Thiruvengadam, the father of

the plaintifs herein. Pending suit the Thiruvengadam has also sold the

another his share of 217 sq.ft his brother D2 Varadharajan as per Sale

Deed. The said Sale Deed is subject matter of O.S.No.4133/2007 before

the VIth Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai. Since the major issue is

pending before this Court in the Second Appeal on an application under

Section 10 of C.P.C, the trial of that case is ordered to be stayed. The

core issue that has to be gone into is Whether Ex.A2, dated 26.06.1992

partition deed entered between the wife of Kuppuswamy and two sons

Thiruvengadam and Varadharajan viz., D1 and D2 (R1&R2) herein is

sustainable in law or not?

14. The learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff could contend

that since their exist a joint family nucleus, by selling the same, they

have purchased the property and therefore Item No.I has assumed the

character of ancestral property and plaintiffs are being the grand-son of

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ S.A.No.1173 of 2005

Kuppuswamy are entitled to a share and hence the partition suit. He also

draw my attention to the finding rendered by the trial Court on Ex.A2 that

there was no positive evidence to show that their existed an ancestral

property and further from and out of the sale proceeds they have

purchased the Item No I of the suit property. Accordingly, rejected the

case of the plaintiff and accepted the case of the defendants 1&2 and

upheld Ex.A2 Partition Deed. The lower Appellate Court has stated that

the Item No.II of the property is a Government poromboke and hence it is

not available for partition. Now the lis is between the plaintiff and second

respondent.

15. M/s.Reshmi Christy, learned counsel on behalf of the 4th

respondent, wife of late Thiruvengadam could contend that she supports

the case of the plaintiff since she was leaving separately away from her

husband and filed a suit for maintenance from her husband. Taking

advantage of the strained relationship between the husband and wife, the

second defendant who is the brother of her husband as clandestinely

taken the major share and a token share was given to the her husband

namely the first defendant and he is also dead. Under Ex.A2 is

inequitable and so unsustainable in law. So is the argument of the

counsel for the appellant.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ S.A.No.1173 of 2005

16. Heard the learned counsel for the respondent.

17. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted in support

of the judgment and decree below.

18. The pleading and evidence reveals that the first defendant is

the father of the plaintiffs 1&2, second defendant is the brother of the

first defendant and the third defendant is the brother of the first

defendant's father. There are two items in the suit property. As per the

plaint and as per the evidence of P.W.2, item No.1 is ancestral property at

the hands of the first defendant, having purchased from the sale of

ancestral property.

19. The relationship between the parties are as under:

In the village of Ukkotai, Ganapathy Naicker had two sons by

name Kuppusamy Naickar and Manavalan Naickar. The said Kuupusamy

Naickar had purchased the property. After the death of said Kuppuswamy

Naicker, in the said suit property there was a family partition under Ex.A2

between the wife of the Kuppusamy Naickar and the first defendant viz.,

Thiruvengadam and the second defendant viz., Varadharajan and their

sons as the plaintiffs herein. The third defendant viz., G.Manavalan is the

brother of the Kuppusamy Naickar.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ S.A.No.1173 of 2005

20. The Trial Court has come to the conclusion that the first item

of the suit property is self acquired property of the Kuppuswamy.

21. In respect of Item No.2, both the Courts below have held

that item No.2 of the suit property is situated in Government Porambok

and hence, the same is not available for partition though the third

defendant is residing there. The Lower Appellate Court has confirmed the

finding rendered by the Trial Court on the premise that in the absence of

any document to show that in the sale of the ancestral property, item

No.I of the suit property in Survey No.411 was purchased and also taking

note of the evidence of P.W.2 and Ex.A2, has held that the partition deed

under Ex.A2 is valid and plaintiffs have come forward to the specific plea

that by selling the property in Survey No.486/4 to an extent of 46 cents,

have purchased the first item of the suit property and they have not filed

any documents to substantiate the same. Furthermore, the oral evidence

let in does not disclose the availability of joint family property.

Accordingly, the said findings have been confirmed by the Lower

Appellate Court.

22. On perusal of the recital Ex.A1, it is seen that the property is

self-acquired property of Kuppuswamy Naicker, Manavala Naicker-(third

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ S.A.No.1173 of 2005

respondent is the younger brother). On his death, the widow of

Kuppuswamy Naicker and the defendants 1&2 have partitioned in the

property under Ex.A2 partition deed. It is a specific case of the

appellants/plaintiffs that their exist and ancestral nucleus in Survey

No.486/4 in Ukkotai village and it was sold for the purpose of purchasing

the item No.I of the suit property in the year 1968.

23. Both the Courts below, after perusing the documentary

evidence as well as oral evidence has come to the conclusion that the

plaintiff has come forward with a specific plea of existence of ancestral

nucleus in Survey No.486/4. However no scrap of evidence has been let

in to show their exist ancestral property has rightly pointed out by the

Lower Appellate Court. No documents has filed to show whether

Manavalan or Kuppuswamy is the owner of the alleged ancestral

property. No documents to show that the grandfather or great

grandfather of the plaintiff had possessed the land in Survey No.486/4.

Had there been any cultivation of those lands, it could have definitely

reflected in revenue records, no patta or citta has been filed to show and

they had possessed the said lands in the said Survey No. Neither any

documents has been filed nor any supporting documents by way of

revenue records has been filed before the trial Court. Though the plaintiff

has taken a specific plea that the said ancestral property was sold in

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ S.A.No.1173 of 2005

order to purchase item No.I of the property. Neither the sale deed of the

alleged ancestral property nor the certified copy, there be has been filed

before the trial Court.

24. On the contrary, the defendants had filed Ex.B1 which is a

Encumbrance Certificate in respect of the above said Survey No.486/4

scanning from 1942 to 1968 wherein, there is no valid only with respect

to any transaction in the above stated Survey No and hence both the

Courts below has rightly appreciated the documentary evidence of

Exs.A1, A2 and B1 and rightly come to the conclusion that the existence

of the ancestral nucleus, as alleged by the plaintiff is not proved and nor

even any piece of the evidence has been filed before the Court as to

alleged the existence of any such property. Neither any document of title

or any records to show that the so called ancestral property in the said

Survey No was owned or possessed or cultivated by Kuppuswamy or his

father at any point of time. Except filing Ex.A1, no other documents has

been filed by the plaintiff, other than Ex.A1, which is a Sale Deed in

favour of the grandfather of the plaintiff, namely Kuppuswamy.

25. It remains to be stated that if the family had any lands in

Survey No.486/4 as projected by the plaintiff, has spoken to by P.W.2

there should be some documents to show the title or revenue documents

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ S.A.No.1173 of 2005

to show her possession or patta or chitta to show that the ancestral of

nature of property.

26. Per contra, Ex.B1 Encumbrance Certificate for the period

1940 to 1968 shows that there is no entry at all the plaintiff has not

taken any steps to produce any document to substantiate his plea as to

the existence of the ancestral nucleus for the purchase of Item No.I of the

suit property.

27. It is trite in law that in a suit for partition to the plaintiff

alleges that the suit property was purchased from the sale proceeds of

ancestral nucleus then burden of proof lies on the shoulder of the

plaintiff to show that their exist an ancestral property. From and out of

the said ancestral property, the income was derived or the said ancestral

property was sold and from the sale proceeds, the suit property now

sought for partition is purchased. Absolutely, the plaintiff has miserably

failed to demonstrate these two aspects. Neither existence of ancestral

property nor the alleged sale of the ancestral property is proved before

the trial Court and hence both the Courts below has rightly appreciated

the oral and documentary evidence and rightly come to the conclusion

that the plaintiff has failed discharge the burden of proof on the

shoulders of the plaintiff. Accordingly, disallowed the claim of the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ S.A.No.1173 of 2005

plaintiff. Such finding rendered by both the Courts below does not suffer

from any irregularity or illegality warranting interference.

28. On re-appreciation of the evidence and also taking note of

the recital of Exs.A1 and A2, I find that the plaintiffs have failed to

discharge the burden proof that the suit property was purchased from

and out of sale of ancestral property and hence, both the Courts below

has rightly held that the suit is not an ancestral property and accordingly

rejected the case of the plaintiff in view of the existence of Ex.A2

Partition Deed and hence, the Substantial Questions of Law does not arise

in the factual situation of the case. Accordingly, the Substantial

Questions of Law are held in negation against the appellants.

29. In the result,

(i) This Second Appeal is dismissed. No costs.

(ii) The judgments and decrees of the First Appellate Court and

the Trial Court are confirmed.

23.03.2021

nvi

Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No Speaking Order:Yes/No

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ S.A.No.1173 of 2005

To

1.The Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.I, Chennai,

2.The VII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ S.A.No.1173 of 2005

RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN,J.,

nvi

Judgment in

S.A.No.1173 of 2005

23.03.2021

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/