Madras High Court
Marie Philomine vs Mariya Susainathan @ ... on 6 January, 2022
AS.No.410/2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 06.01.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR
AS.No.410/2018
[Virtual Mode]
Marie Philomine .. Appellant/Plaintiff
Vs.
1.Mariya Susainathan @ Philominathan
2.Pomey Mary
3.Noyal Mary
4.Marie Josphine
5.Jhesindha @ Andhasu
6.Rosali
7.Immanuel Raja .. Respondents/Defendants
Prayer:- Appeal Suit filed under Section 96 r/w Order XLI Rule 1 of Civil
Procedure Code to set aside the judgment and decree dated 12.01.2018 in
O.S.No.17/2012 on the file of the Court of the learned District Judge at
Karaikal and consequently decree the Suit in O.S.No.17/2012.
For Appellant : Mr.T.Sai Krishnan
For Respondents : Mr.Kumaraguru
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1/11
AS.No.410/2018
JUDGMENT
(1) The plaintiff in the Suit in O.S.No.17/2012 on the file of the learned
District Judge at Karaikal is the appellant in the Appeal Suit.
(2) The appellant filed the Suit in O.S.No.17/2012 for partition and for
declaration, declaring that she is entitled to a share of 0.09.32
hectares in the Suit property which is described as a property
measuring to an extent of 0.41.00 hectares comprised in
R.S.No.67/10, O.S.No.225/1B, corresponding to new T.S.No.13/1
and 13/2 in Keezhakasakudy Revenue Village within the municipal
limits of Karaikal in Karaikal region.
(3) The case of the appellant in the plaint is that the Suit property
originally belonged to one Kuzhandaisamy the father of plaintiff and
defendants 1 to 5. It is the further case of plaintiff that said
Kuzhandaisamy during his life time, when he was in sound state of
mind, executed a registered Will on 23.02.1977 in respect of the Suit
property. It is further stated that the said Will came into force on the
death of plaintiff 's father on 01.02.1980.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/11
AS.No.410/2018
(4) It is stated that as per Will, the testator created life estate over the
Suit property in favour of his wife who died on 09.03.1981. It is
contended further that the Suit property devolved on the persons in
favour of whom the testator had bequethed the Suit property. It is the
specific case of the plaintiff that her father bequethed an extent of
0.09.20 hectares to each of his three sons and to an extent of 0.06.70
to each of his two daughters. Therefore, it is stated by the plaintiff
that after the death of her father and her mother, she is entitled to
seek partition of her share as per the Will.
(5) It is also stated that one of his brother by name Amalorbawanathan
@ Anthonysamy died on 19.06.1991 and another brother by name
Fransuwa @ Arokiyanathan died on 22.01.2005 as unmarried and
issueless and therefore, the property that were bequethed in favour of
her deceased brothers devolved on their brothers and sisters. In the
plaint, it is also stated that the plaintiff came to know that the 1st
defendant was trying to sell the property by dividing the property as
house sites. It is also stated that she came to know thereafter that
Sale Deeds have been executed by their father in favour of the 1st
defendant and 5th defendant on 23.02.1978.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/11
AS.No.410/2018
(6) Stating that the Sale Deeds stated to have been executed by their
father are null and void, as they were obtained by dominating the
Will of executor by collusion and fraud played by the defendants 1
and 5, the plaintiff has come forward with the Suit for partition and
declaration of her share as given under the Will.
(7) The Suit was contested mainly on the ground that the father during
his life time had executed the Sale Deeds and therefore, the plaintiffs'
claim on the basis of the Will dated 23.02.1977 is unsustainable.
(8) The defendants actually filed independent Written Statement raising
several issues, to non suit the appellant. It is contended that the Suit
is barred by limitation as the plaintiff has come forward with the Suit
for declaration decades after the Sale Deeds were executed by her
father. It is also contended that the Sale Deeds dated 23.02.1978
were executed for valid consideration and that the plaintiff has no
right to question the independent sale. The 4th defendant in the Suit is
also sailing along with the plaintiff/appellant and contented that she
is also entitled to a share as per the Will.
(9) The Trial Court framed an issue whether the plaintiff and the four
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/11
AS.No.410/2018
respondents are entitled to declaration of their share as per the Will
executed by their father prior to the Sale Deed.
(10) The Trial Court found that the father Kuzhandaisamy had executed
the Sale Deeds dated 23.02.1978 for valid consideration. It is also
held that the Suit is barred by limitation. Though the Will stated to
have been executed by the father is also admitted, in view of the
subsequent alienation by the father himself in favour of other
defendants, the Trial Court refused to grant any relief to the
appellant. As against the judgment and decree of the Lower Court,
the present Appeal Suit is preferred by the plaintiff.
(11) Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the Trial
Court erred in dismissing the Suit when the plaintiff had established
before the Trial Court by evidence that the Sale Deeds were not
voluntarily executed and that it was by exercising undue influence
and coercion. Learned counsel submitted that the Sale Deeds were
executed without any consideration. Learned counsel also submitted
that the findings on the question of limitation is not sustainable as
the Suit itself was filed within three years from the date of
knowledge about the Sale Deeds.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/11
AS.No.410/2018
(12) This Court is unable to countenance any of the arguments of the
learned counsel appearing for the appellant, having regard to the
nature and findings of the Lower Court.
(13) First of all it is to be noticed that the plaintiff 's Suit is based on the
Will. It is settled that a Will comes into force only after the death of
testator. In such circumstances, the testator himself is the absolute
owner and there is no legal impediment to alienate the property.
Since the question is about the validity of the Sale Deeds, it is
necessary to consider the plea of plaintiff questioning the validity of
the Sale Deeds. In the plaint in paragraph 9, the plaintiff has stated
as follows:
“....That the above Sale Deeds are null and
void from the date of their inception. They were
obtained by dominating the Will of executor by
collusion and fraud played by the 1st and 5th
defendant. No consideration was passed under the
alleged sale transaction and consequently they are
not binding the plaintiff. As those Sale Deeds are
null and void, they need not be set-aside. Hence the
plaintiff pays that this Hon'ble Court may be
pleased to declare that the above Sale Deeds are
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6/11
AS.No.410/2018
null and void and consequently they are not binding
the plaintiffs.”
(14) Therefore, it can be taken that the plaintiff challenges the Sale Deeds
executed by the father on the ground that the documents of sale were
obtained by undue influence, collusion and fraud. It is to be noted
that there is no plea of undue influence or collusion except the bald
allegation. Though, the word fraud is used, how it was accomplished
is not stated in the entire plaint. A fraud is defined under Section 17
of the Contract Act, in the following lines.
“17.Fraud defined.-- “Fraud means and includes
any of the following acts committed by a party to a
contract, or with his connivance, or by his agent, with
intent to deceive another party thereto of his agent, or to
induce him to enter into the contract:--
(1) the suggestion, as a fact, of that which is not true, by
one who does not believe it to be true;
(2) the active concealment of a fact by one having
knowledge or belief of the fact;
(3) a promise made without any intention of performing it;
(4) any other act fitted to deceive;
(5) any such act or omission as the law specifically
declares to be fraudulent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 7/11
AS.No.410/2018
Explanation.-- Mere silence as to facts likely to affect the
willingness of a person to enter into a contract is not
fraud, unless the circumstances of the case are such that,
regard being had to them, it is the duty of the person
keeping silence to speak, or unless his silence is, in itself,
equivalent to speech.”
(15) The plaintiff has not pleaded any of the circumstances which would
support her case of fraud while defendants 1 and 5 getting the Sale
Deed from the testator. Even with regard to undue influence or
collusion absolutely there is no factual foundation in the plaint.
Learned counsel appearing for the appellant strenuously argued that
the Sale Deed is without any consideration. The documents namely,
the Sale Deeds, are marked as Exs.B1 and B4. Exs.B1 and B4 refers
to passing of consideration and the amount paid has been shown as
consideration and the father who executed the document specifically
acknowledged the receipt of consideration under the respective Sale
Deeds.
(16) Learned counsel appearing for the appellant suggested that the value
of the property has been shown in the Will as Rs.3000/- whereas the
two Sale Deeds had been executed for a sum of Rs.400/- and 2000/-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 8/11
AS.No.410/2018
respectively. The plea that was raised by the plaintiff in the plaint
that the Sale Deeds are without consideration appears to be for the
reasons that values shown in the two Sale Deeds are less than the
value shown in the Will. The argument is not legally sustainable.
(17) The grounds raised challenging the findings of the Lower Court on
the questions of limitation cannot be appreciated. Though the
plaintiff pleaded that she came to know about the Sale Deed at a
later point of time the Sale Deeds were executed in the year, 1977
during the life time of father. This Court is unable to accept the case
of plaintiff that she came to know about the Sale Deeds only in 2012
just prior to the filing of the Suit.
(18) The Trial Court has given cogent reasons to hold that the Suit is
barred by limitation. It is admitted that the defendants 1 to 5 are in
possession of the Suit property. The plaintiff is out of enjoyment or
possession. This does not explain why the plaintiff did not ask for
partition or declaration for a long time. The findings of Trial Court
are based on proper appreciation of evidence and are well founded.
This Court is unable to interfere with the findings of Lower Court on
facts particularly when it is not brought to the notice of this Court
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 9/11
AS.No.410/2018
how they are perverse or without considering material pleadings or
evidence.
(19) As a result, the Appeal Suit stands dismissed and the judgment and
decree of the Trial Court dated 12.01.2018 in O.S.No.17/2012 on the
file of the Court of the learned District Judge at Karaikal is
confirmed. No costs.
06.01.2022
cda
Internet : Yes
To
The District Judge at Karaikal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 10/11
AS.No.410/2018
S.S.SUNDAR, J.,
cda
AS.No.410/2018
06.01.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 11/11
