Madras High Court
Gunasundari vs H.Pushpalingam on 3 February, 2022
S.A.No.645 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 03.02.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.GOVINDARAJ
S.A.No.645 of 2017
Gunasundari ... Appellant
Vs.
H.Pushpalingam ... Respondent
PRAYER: The Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure
Code against the judgment and decree dated 04.01.2017 in A.S.No.59 of 2016
on the file of the VII Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, confirming
the judgment and decree dated 27.11.2015 in O.S.No.753 of 2012 on the file of
the III Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.
For Appellant : Mr.K.Kannan
For Respondent : Mr.R.Thiagarajan
-----
JUDGMENT
The unsuccessful plaintiff has preferred the present Second Appeal
challenging the concurrent findings of the Courts below.
1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.645 of 2017
2. The plaintiff filed a suit for partition claiming that her father, by
name K.Harikrishnan, during his life time, had executed a Settlement Deed in
her favour, vide vide Document No.88 of 2006, dated 18.01.2006 at the office
of the Sub-Registrar, Royapuram, Chennai. She is entitled to half share of the
property and other half share was settled in favour of her younger brother
Pushpalingam. However, while executing the Settlement Deed, her initial was
wrongly mentioned as 'R' and her husband's name was shown as Raghupathi,
whereas, her husband's name is Nagooran. She has another sister, by name
Kalavathi @ Sasikala, who was married to G.Raghupathi on 12.06.1994. The
said Sasikala obtained two Ration Cards in two places, one at Palaniamman
Koil North 1st Street, and another one from Chockalingam Colony 4th Street. In
the first Ration Card, her name was mentioned as Gunasundari and in the
second Ration Card, it is mentioned as Kalavathi. In order to grab the property,
she had given her name as Gunasundari, W/o. Raghupathi. Therefore, the
plaintiff issued a legal notice dated 20.07.2011, which was replied by the
defendant on 02.08.2011, with untenable allegations. Hence, she was
constrained to file a suit for partition.
2 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.645 of 2017
3. The defendant denied the averments made in the plaint and
contended that the property was executed in favour of his sister R.Gunasundari
W/o. G.Raghupathi and her husband G.Raghupathi is also shown as witness to
the execution of the Settlement Deed. The said R.Gunasundari is in enjoyment
of the property without any encumbrance. If at all, it was a mistake, it could
have been rectified by executing Rectification Deed, whereas, the plaintiff,
whose name is Guna, created some false documents for the purpose of filing the
suit and also created one marriage invitation that her sister name, is Sasikala. In
the Legal Heirship certificate, the legal heirs were shows as (1) H.Sadaiamma,
Wife of Harikrishnan (2) Guna, Daughter (married) (3) Gunasundari, Daughter
(married) and (4) H.Pushpalingam, Son (married). As per the Legal Heirship
certificate, the plaintiff's name is Guna and her sister's name is Gunasundari.
The Settlement Deed was executed in favour of daughter, Gunasundari and son,
Pushpalingam. The name, Sasikala in the marriage invitation is not connected
to the suit. Therefore, the property is not liable for partition.
3 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.645 of 2017
4. The Trial Court framed appropriate issues and dismissed the suit
on the ground that the plaintiff has failed to establish her identity and the
entitlement to half share of the property. The First Appellate Court has
confirmed the same. Aggrieved by the concurrent judgments of the Courts
below, the plaintiff is before this Court.
5. Heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for the
appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent and perused the materials
available on record.
6. At the outset, it has to be found as to whether the Settlement Deed
dated 18.01.2006, was executed in favour of the plaintiff. On the side of the
plaintiff, her husband was examined supporting her evidence. Curiously, the
mother of the parties, namely, H.Sadaiamma, was examined as D.W.3 and the
other sister, Gunasundari, was examined as D.W.2. The evidence of D.W.3
affirms that her husband executed the Settlement Deed only in favour of their
younger daughter, Gunasundari. From the evidence, it is clearly elicited that the
plaintiff was given a house at Thazhankuppam, Ennore at the time of her
4 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.645 of 2017
marriage. She sold the property and purchased a Fishing Boat under Ex.B1. The
factum is that she owns the Fishing Boat, which was not refused by the
plaintiff. Further, D.W.3 deposed that the house property was settled in favour
of her younger daughter and son. The plaintiff had marked Exs.A1 to A18 to
prove her case. Ex.A1 is the Settlement Deed, Ex.A2 is the Death Certificate.
There is no dispute over the same and Ex.A3 is Ration Card, in which, the
name of the plaintiff was mentioned as Gunasundari, W/o.Nagooran, but, her
age was mentioned as 37 years. Ex.A3, Ration Card, was issued between 2005-
2009 and the address in the Ration Card is mentioned as No.41/51, Puthumanai
Kuppam, 4th Street, Royapuram, Chennai - 600 081. In the Settlement Deed,
which is marked as Ex.A1, the address of the Settlee is mentioned as Old.No.4,
New No.7, Palaniamman Koil, North First Street, Chepauk. This Family Card
was also issued during the same period i.e. 2005-2009. This Family Card was
marked as Ex.A-11, which tallys with the address in the Settlement Deed and in
that, the age of Gunasundari was shown as 28 years. Therefore, at the time of
execution of the Settlement Deed, dated 18.01.2006, Gunasundari
W/o.Raghupathy, was residing at No.4/7, Palaniamman Koil North First Street,
Chepauk, and not with the plaintiff, who is the wife of Nagooran. The age of
the plaintiff during 2006 was 37 years and the age of the younger sister was 28
5 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.645 of 2017
years. The fact that the the younger sister of the plaintiff is R.Gunasundari,
W/o.G.Raghupathy, probabilise the evidence of D.W.3 that the Settlement
Deed was executed in favour of the younger daughter of Harikrishnan and not
in favour of the plaintiff.
7. The learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff strongly relied on
his case on the basis of Ex.A4 Marriage Invitation, wherein, the younger sister's
name was shown as Sasikala, who married to G.Raghupathy and her name was
shown at the back side showing her husband's name is Nagooran. Therefore,
her younger sister's name is only Sasikala and not R.Gunasundari. But, to
substantiate the Marriage Invitation, no witness was examined. Therefore, it is
clear that the case projected by the plaintiff that her sister's name Sasikala has
not been established by any evidence. On the other hand, the plaintiff attempts
to identify her as R.Gunasundari by marking Voter ID, Electricity Bill Receipt,
Letter from the Electricity Board, Savings Bank Passbook and Tamil Nadu
Government Gazette. Curiously, the documents marked as Exs.A9, A10, A13,
A14, etc are post suit documents. The suit was filed on 27.01.2012, whereas
these documents are subsequent to the suit. Therefore, the documents marked
as Exs.A4, A9, A10, A13 and A14 do not establish her identity and that the
6 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.645 of 2017
Settlement Deed was executed in favour of the plaintiff. Therefore, at the first
instance, the plaintiff failed to prove that her younger sister's name is Kalavathy
@ Sasikala and that there is some typographical error in the Settlement Deed,
which was executed in her favour and as contended by the learned counsel for
the respondent/defendant, it could have been rectified in the manner known to
law. It can be said that at the time due to the confusion, her husband's name was
wrongly typed by the father, but, the father did not mention the daughter's name
wrongly. The Legal Heirship certificate shows that the first daughter is N.Guna.
In that case, the father should have typed the name of the daughter as Guna and
not as Gunasundari, more particularly, when another daughter by name
Gunasundari is there. The husband of younger daughter attested the Settlement
Deed. The fact that the husband of the younger daughter, namely, Gunasundari,
attests the Settlement Deed, which leads to inference that the Settlement Deed
was intended in favour of his wife and not in favour of the elder daughter of the
Settlee. The issues have been analyed threadbare by both the Courts below and
have given concrete findings on the evidence that the plaintiff is not entitled to
claim partition in the property settled in favour of her younger sister.
7 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.645 of 2017
M. GOVINDARAJ, J.
asi
8. I do not find any substantial question of law arising out of the
factual matrix of the suit and the Second Appeal does not merit admission.
Accordingly, the Second Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to
costs.
03.02.2022
asi
To
1. The VII Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.
2. The III Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.
S.A.No.645 of 2017
8 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
