Rukkmani vs Gajendran
2022 Latest Caselaw 8273 Mad

                                                                                           S.A.No.359 of 2014

                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                   Dated : 20.04.2022

                                                             Coram:

                                   THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE N.ANAND VEKATESH

                                                   Second Appeal No.359 of 2014
                                                     and MP.Nos. 1, 2 of 2014


              1.Rukkmani

              2.Munisamy Chetty                                         ..Appellants/Appellants/Defendants


                                                              .Vs.


              1.Gajendran
              2.Rajavelu (Deceased)
              3.Lakshmi
              4.Santhi                                                  ..Respondents/Respondents/Plaintiffs




              Prayer:         Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against
              the Judgment and Decree dated 20.12.2013 made in AS.No.43 of 2010 on the file of the
              Subordinate Judge, Gudiyatham, in confirming the Judgment and Decree dated
              26.10.2010 made in O.S.No.423 of 2004, on the file of the District Munsif Court,
              Gudiyatham.


                                  For Appellants       : Mr.G.Vinodh Kumar

                                  For Respondents      : Mr.K.A.Ravindran
                                                         for R1 & R 4



https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                             1 / 6
                                                                                          S.A.No.359 of 2014

                                                       JUDGMENT

The defendants are appellants in this Second Appeal.

2.The respondents/plaintiffs filed a suit seeking for the relief of partition and for

allotment of ½ share in the suit property.

3.The case of the plaintiffs is that they are brothers and sons of one Anjaneyulu

Chetty. The 2nd defendant is the brother of the said Anjaneyulu Chetty and the 1st

defendant is the wife of the 2nd defendant. The further case of the plaintiffs is that the

suit property originally belonged to Murugappa Chetty and Muniyammal, who were the

grand father and the grand mother of the plaintiffs. They executed a registered Will

dated 27.4.1981, marked as Ex.B-1 in favour of the 1st defendant and bequeathed the

entire suit property in her favour.

4.It is stated that the grandmother Muniyammal with a sound and disposing state

of mind executed a registered settlement deed dated 29.11.1993 in favour of the

plaintiffs, marked as Ex.A-1 and she settled ½ share in the suit property in favour of the

plaintiffs. The 1st defendant had instituted proceedings against the plaintiffs and their

father by questioning the settlement deed on the ground that the said Muniyammal had

executed the document when she was in an unsound state of mind. This suit was not

prosecuted by the 1st defendant and it was dismissed as not pressed.

5.The grievance of the plaintiffs was that the 1st defendant was evading to

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2 / 6 S.A.No.359 of 2014

partition the property by metes and bounds and left with no other alternative, the suit

came to be filed seeking for ½ share in the suit properties.

6.The 1st defendant filed a written statement and took a stand that the settlement

deed dated 29.11.1993 is unsustainable in law since Muniyammal was in an unsound

state of mind and she was actually taking treatment in a mental hospital at Vellore during

the relevant point of time. The 1st defendant took a further stand that she is the

absolute owner of the suit property by virtue of Ex.B-1 Will and the 1st defendant denied

the very claim made by the plaintiffs seeking for ½ share in the suit properties.

Accordingly, the 1st defendant sought for the dismissal of the suit.

7.Both the Courts below on considering the facts and circumstances of the case

and on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, concurrently held in favour of

the plaintiffs and decreed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants have filed

this Second Appeal.

8. Heard Mr.G.Vinodh Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants and

Mr.K.A.Ravindran, learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 4. This Court also carefully

perused the materials available on record and the findings of both the Courts below.

9.The main issue that requires the consideration by this Court is as to whether the

settlement deed dated 29.11.1993 executed by Muniyammal in favour of the plaintiffs

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3 / 6 S.A.No.359 of 2014

was executed when she was suffering from unsound mind as claimed by the 1 st

defendant. While dealing with this issue, both the Courts below took into consideration

the earlier proceedings that were initiated by the 1st defendant. The 1st defendant had

filed OS.No.1023/1993, wherein, the 1st defendant claimed to be the absolute owner of

the suit properties by virtue of Ex.B-1 Will and she had claimed for the allotment of the

suit properties in her favour. In this suit, the said Muniyammal was made as a party and

it was shown as if, she is represented by a guardian since she was suffering from

unsound mind. This suit was dismissed for non-prosecution and the same is evident from

exhibits B-3 to B-5.

10.The 1st defendant also instituted a suit in OS.No.55/1994 seeking for a

declaration to declare the settlement deed dated 29.11.1993 as null and void since it was

executed by Muniyammal, when she was suffering from unsound state of mind. This

suit was also not prosecuted and it was dismissed as not pressed.

11.Both the Courts below took into consideration these proceedings initiated by

the 1st defendant and found that the 1st defendant never took any steps to prove that

Muniyammal was suffering from unsound mind during the relevant point of time.

12.The Courts below also took into consideration exhibits B-14 and B-15 which

were the receipts issued by the C.M.C., Hospital at Vellore. On going through these

receipts, both the Courts found that there was absolutely no indication that the said

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4 / 6 S.A.No.359 of 2014

Muniyammal was taking treatment on account of her unsound state of mind.

13.Both the Courts below also took into consideration the evidence of DW-1 and

DW-2 and found that they have taken such a stand only with a view to claim a right over

the entire suit property.

14.In the considered view of this Court, the findings rendered by both the Courts

below are factual in nature and those findings have been rendered on appreciation of

oral and documentary evidence. This Court does not find any perversity in those findings

and it does not warrant interference of this Court. In any event, no substantial questions

of law are involved in this Second Appeal.

15.In the result, this Second Appeal is dismissed. Considering the facts and

circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected

miscellaneous petitions are dismissed.

20.04.2022 Internet: Yes Index: Yes/No KP N.ANAND VENKATESH,J.

KP

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5 / 6 S.A.No.359 of 2014

To

1.Subordinate Judge, Gudiyatham

2. District Munsif Court, Gudiyatham.

3.The Section Officer V.R.Section, High Court, Madras.

Second Appeal No.359 of 2014

20.04.2022

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6 / 6