Madras High Court

Raghuraman Pillai (Died) vs Soodamani Ammal (Died) on 9 June, 2022

                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                   DATED : 09.06.2022
                                                     CORAM:

                                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN

                                                 A.S.No. 496 of 2011
                                                        And
                                                S.A.No. 1067 of 2003
                                                        And
                                               Cont.P.No. 1197 of 2009

                     A.S.No. 496 of 2011

                     1. Raghuraman Pillai (died)

                     2. G.R.Venkatesan


                     3. Jamuna Rani


                     4. Ravi


                     5. Sathya Vani


                     6. Soundara Rajan


                     7. Varalakshmi


                     8. Kavitha                                      ... Appellants




                     1/14


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                             Vs
                     1.   Soodamani Ammal (died)
                     2.   Jothiramalingam
                     3.   Yoganandam
                     4.   Thirunavukkarasu (died issuless)
                     5.   Kausalya
                     6.   Santhi
                     7.   Kaveri
                     8.   Pattabiraman (died)
                     9. Kodanda Raman


                     10. Mohaa Sundaram


                     11. Mehanadan                                         ... Respondents

                     PRAYER: Appeal filed under Order XLI Rule 1 and Section 96 C.P.C.,
                     against the final decree passed in O.S.No. 503 of 1999 dated 24.06.2003 by
                     the learned Subordinate Judge, Gudiyatham.
                                                                  ***

For 1st & 2nd Appellant: Mr. T.M.Hariharan

For Appellants 3 to 8 : Mr.V.Perumal for Mr.T.Dhanyakumar

For RR 1 to 7 : Mr.K.A.Ravindran

For RR 8 to 11 : Mr.S.Vijayakumar

S.A.No. 1067 of 2003

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

1. Raghurama Pillai (died) ... 1st Respondent/1st Defendant/Appellant/Appellant

2. G.R.Venkatesan

3. Jamuna Rani

4. Ravi

5. Sathya Vani

6. Soundara Rajan

7. Varalakshmi

8. Kavith ... Appellants

Vs.

1. Jothiramalingam

2. Yoganathan

3. Thirunaavukkarasu (died issue less)

4. Kausalya

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

5. Santhi

6. Kaveri

7. Pattabhiraman

8. Kodanda Raman

9. Mohaa Sundaram

10. Mehanadan .. 3rd parties L.Rs., of petitioner & 2nd respondent 3rd parties (L.Rs of petitioner & 2nd Defendant/Respondents/Respondents) PRAYER: This Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the Judgment and Decree of the learned Principal District Judge, Vellore, dated 26.09.2002 in A.S.No. 60 of 2001 modifying the Judgment and Decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, Gudiyattam, dated 20.11.2002 in I.A.No. 274 of 1999 in O.S.No. 503 of 1999.

                                                             ***
                                  For 2nd Appellant     :          Mr. V.Perumal
                                                                   for Mr. T.M.Hariharan

                                  For 1st Respondent    :          No appearance

                                  For RR 2 to 6, 9 and 10:         Mr. K.A.Ravindran




                     Cont.P.No. 378 of 2022




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                     G.R.Venkatesan                                                 ... Petitioner

                                                             Vs

                     1. Jothiramalingam

                     2. Yoganantham

                     3. Kaveri                                                      ...Respondents

PRAYER: Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971, to punish them for having violated the orders of this Hon'ble Court dated 19.03.2005 in C.M.P.No. 17429 of 2004 in S.A.No. 1069 of 2003.

                                                             ***
                                            For Petitioner         : Mr. T.M.Hariharan

For 1st Respondent : Mr.K.A.Ravindran for Mr. S.Vijayakumar

For RR 2 & 3 : Mr.K.A.Ravindran

COMMON JUDGMENT

All the three matters have been directed to be listed as per roster

and since the Contempt Petition has been filed in S.A.No. 1067 of 2003, the

three matters have been listed before this Court.

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

2. The Second Appeal and the First Appeal emanate from a suit

for partition in O.S.No. 169 of 1977 which was on the file of Sub Court,

Vellore. The said suit for partition had been filed by Soodamani Ammal

against Raghurama Pillai and Pattabiraman, who are her brothers. As on

date, the plaintiff Soodamani Ammal, the first defendant Raghurama Pillai

and the second defendant Pattabiraman have all died but their legal

representatives are still at lis over the issues which have been raised in the

Original Suit, and more particularly in the preliminary decree passed and

also in the final decree passed.

3. It must be mentioned that the said suit progressed and by

consent of all the parties, a preliminary decree was passed on 11.03.1980

wherein the properties which were the subject matter of the partition suit

were divided. The share of each of the parties determined at 1/3 rd each.

Questioning the said preliminary decree, A.S.No. 60 of 2001 was filed

before the District Court at Vellore by the first defendant Raghurama Pillai.

The First Appeal was dismissed by Judgment dated 26.09.2002.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Questioning the said Judgment dismissing A.S.No. 60 of 2001 Raghurama

Pillai, the first defendant filed S.A.No. 1067 of 2003.

4. In the meanwhile, since final decree also came to be passed,

questioning the final decree, Raghurama Pillai had filed A.S.No. 496 of

2011. That appeal was originally filed before the District Court at Vellore

with considerable delay. The delay application was transferred to this

Court and by consent, the delay was condoned and A.S.No. 496 of 2011

came to be numbered and is also now listed before this Court.

5. It must also be mentioned that pending the Second Appeal an

order of injunction had been granted restraining the respondents therein

from dealing with or alienating any of the portions even though they have

been allotted shares in the preliminary decree / final decree.

6. It is complained that the plaintiff/legal heirs of the plaintiff had

dealt with the front portion of a particular property and questioning such

sale deed, Contempt Petition No. 1197 of 2009 has been filed by

G.R.Venkatesan, one of the legal heirs of Raghurama Pillai.

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

7. Heard Mr.T.M.Hariharan, learned counsel appearing on behalf

of the first and second appellants in S.A.No. 1067 of 2003 and also in

Transferred A.S.No. 496 of 2011 and the petitioner in Contempt Petition No.

1197 of 2009 and Mr.V.Perumal for Mr.T.Dhanyakumar, learned counsel

appearing for the appellants 3 to 9 in S.A.No. 1067 of 2003 and

Mr.K.A.Ravindran, learned counsel for the 2nd and 3rd respondents in the

Second Appeal and in the First Appeal and also for Mr.S.Vijayakumar,

learned counsel, who represented for the legal representatives of the

deceased second defendant.

8. I must place on record my deep appreciation for the sanguine

manner in which the learned counsels argued the matter. As a matter of fact

they were of much assistance to this Court which has enabled disposal of all

the three matters, namely, the Second Appeal, the First Appeal and also the

Contempt Petition. Much prudence was exercised by the learned counsels.

9. Mr.T.M.Hariharan, learned counsel for the second appellant

/Contempt Petitioner had poined out that the parties are willing to abide by

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis the terms of the final decree in so far as the division of the properties are

concerned. The other aspect which has to be now examined is the ovelty to

be paid to equalise the value of the properties allotted. It had been pointed

out by Mr.T.M.Hariharan, learned counsel that each one, namely, the legal

representatives of the plaintiff, of the first defendant and of the second

defendant would be entitled to property worth Rs.14,15,000/-. It is also

stated that the legal representatives of the plaintiffs have been allotted

properties wrote Rs.12,77,000/-. The second appellant / one of the legal

representative of the first defendant has laid a claim through a registered will

to property value of Rs.15,80,500/-. The legal representatives of the second

defendant, have received properties to the value of Rs.13,90,000/-.

10. The parties have agreed to abide with the value of property,

namely that each one of the branch of the family would get property worth

Rs.14,15,000/-. To that extent, there is an agreement among the parties.

11. Now, arrangement will have to be made to equalise the value

by payment of excess value of property received. In this connection, it is

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis pointed out that the legal heirs of the plaintiff had dealt with a particular

property, more particularly the front portion of a property, owing to which

Contempt Petition has been filed. Therefore, it had also been agreed that the

legal heirs of the plaintiff would rest content with the value of the property

of Rs.12,77,000/- and would not seek any further equalisation in money

terms.

12. This would leave the legal representatives of the second

defendant. They had received property worth about Rs.13,90,000/-. This

would indicate that they have to be paid a sum of Rs.25,000/-. However, the

Second Appellant G.R.Venkatesan, one of the legal representatives of

Raghurama Pillai, had come forward to pay an additional sum of

Rs.10,000/- which would indicate that he should pay a sum of Rs.35,000/-.

This amount may actually be exchanged between the counsels and the

amount may be paid to Mr.K.A.Ravindran, the learned counsel, who also

represented Mr. S.Vijayakumar, the learned counsel for the legal

representatives of the second defendant and thereafter, the amounts can be

distributed among the parties. The outer limit for payment of the said sum

of Rs.35,000/- is on or before 28.07.2022.

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

13. Mr.G.R.Venkatesan, the second appellant is physically

present in Court and it has been explained to him that he will have to pay a

sum of Rs.35,000/- on or before 28.07.2022 and he has agreed to do so. The

amount will be paid to his counsel Mr.T.M.Hariharan, who will then give it

to it Mr.K.A.Ravindran, learned counsel.

14. In view of the fact that the legal representatives of the plaintiff

have agreed to give up equalisation of the value of the property, the

Contempt Petition stands closed.

15. It is also pointed out that the original first defendant

Raghurama Pillai had executed a registered Will with respect to the

properties in favour of G.R.Venkatesan and as among the legal

representatives of Raghurama Pillai if ever there is any dispute surrounding

the Will, that issue will have to be decided by the legal representatives of the

Raghurama Pillai in separate proceedings / suit. The execution of the Will is

not a subject matter of the present Second Appeal or of the First Appeal or of

the Contempt Petition.

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

16. In view of the above discussion:-

(i) The Contempt Petition stands closed;

(ii) The Second Appeal is disposed of by payment of Rs.35,000/-

by the second appellant G.R.Venkatesan to the legal representatives of

Pattabiraman / 2nd defendant by making payment on or before 28.07.2022

through the learned counsel Mr.T.M.Hariharan to Mr.K.A.Ravindran, the

learned counsel, who represented also Mr. S.Vijayakumar, the learned

counsel for the legal representatives of the second defendant; and

(iii) the First Appeal which has been filed as against the final

decree need not be pursued further by this Court and therefore stands,

closed in view of the agreement reached among the parties.