Madras High Court
P.A.Kolandaivel vs Kavitha on 15 September, 2022
A.S.No.74 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 15.09.2022
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
A.S.No.74 of 2013
and
M.P.No.1 of 2013
1.P.A.Kolandaivel
2.Vijayakumar ... Appellants
Versus
1.Kavitha
2.Natarajan (died)
3.N.Bakkiam
4.N.Senthil Kumar ... Respondents
[R3 & R4 brought on record as Lrs of the deceased R2
vide order of Court dt. 16.12.2019 made in
C.M.P.Nos.23549, 23550 & 23551 of 2019]
Prayer : Appeal Suit filed under Section 96 of C.P.C against the Judgment and
Decree of the Principal District Judge, Namakkal in O.S.No.116 of 2011, dated
26.09.2012.
For Appellant : Ms.T.Surekha
For R1, R3 & R4 : Notice served – No appearance
For R2 : Died
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/12
A.S.No.74 of 2013
JUDGMENT
The unsuccessful 1st and 2nd defendants are the appellants in the Appeal
Suit.
2.For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their array
of parties in the suit.
3.The plaintiff is the daughter of the 1st defendant, the 2nd defendant is the
son of the 1st plaintiff, the 3rd defendant is the co-brother of the 1st defendant.
While so, the daughter/plaintiff filed a suit for partition claiming a 1/6 th share in
Item No.1 of the suit schedule property and 1/3 rd share in Item No.2 of the suit
schedule property and for an injunction not to disturb her possession and
enjoyment in respect of Item No.2 of the suit schedule property.
4.The case of the plaintiff is that the 1st defendant's father being the
Kartha of the family had sold joint family properties in the year 1971. Out of
the funds received from the said sale, had purchased Item No.1 of the suit
schedule property jointly by a sale deed dated 23.10.1973. Thereafter, again
from the income arising out of the joint family property, he purchased Item
No.2 of the suit schedule property on 25.06.1993. Even though the plaintiff is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.74 of 2013
the daughter entitled for a share, without partitioning and giving her due share,
the 1st and 2nd defendants being the father and brother of the plaintiff attempted
to alienate the property without giving any share to the plaintiff and therefore,
the plaintiff filed the present suit.
5.A written statement was filed by the 2nd defendant, namely the brother
of the plaintiff. The said written statement was adopted by the 1st
defendant/father. The contention of the defendants 1 and 2 is that the property
in Item No.1 of the schedule was purchased out of the self-earned money along
with the 3rd defendant, who was the co-brother of the 1st defendant and
therefore, was not a joint family property. Item No.2 of the suit schedule
property was alloted to the 1st defendant being the Ex-Serviceman and the same
was purchased by him by his own earning and therefore, it was also not a joint
family property and therefore, they prayed for dismissal of the suit.
6.The 3rd defendant filed a separate written statement, in which, he
claimed that as far as second Survey No.57/2 mentioned in Item No.1 of the
suit schedule property is concerned, though the said two properties along with
other properties were brought jointly by himself and the 1st defendant, after
selling a few items of the properties purchased by them in the year 1973, two
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.74 of 2013
items i.e., S.Nos.105 & 57/2 remained. Since they could not jointly enjoy the
property, initially S.No.105/2 was alloted to the 3rd defendant by way of oral
arrangement and S.No.57/2 was alloted to the 1st defendant. Since there were
difficulties in enjoying the property thereafter also they exchanged both the
items and therefore, S.No.57/2 belongs exclusively to him. He is in enjoyment
and possession of the same. On the said pleadings, the Trial Court framed the
following issues :-
“1.Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to 1/6th share in item 1
of the property and 1/3rd share in the 2nd item properties ?
2. Whether the properties are joint family properties of the
1st defendant ?
3. Whether the properties are self acquired properties to
the 1st defendant ?
4. To what relief if any the plaintiff is entitled to ?”
7.On the said issues, the parties let in evidence. The plaintiff examined
herself as P.W.1. The sale deed dated 07.06.1971 selling the joint family
properties was marked as Ex.A1. The sale deed for purchase of Item No.1 of
the suit schedule property dated 23.10.1973 was marked as Ex.A2. The sale
deed dated 25.06.1993 for purchase of Item No.2 of the suit schedule property
was marked as Ex.A3. The sale deed by which, the 1st and 3rd defendant sold
part of the properties purchased by them in the year 1973 dated 09.10.2000 was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.74 of 2013
marked as Ex.A4. The release deed being in the nature of partition between the
1st and 3rd defendants in respect of the properties was marked as Ex.A5.
8.Thereafter, on behalf of the defendants, 2nd defendant i.e., the brother of
the plaintiff was examined as D.W.1. The 3rd defendant examined himself as
D.W.2. One Thiru.Subramanian, who is acquainted with the family of the
parties, was examined as D.W.3, who spoke the fact about the exchange of land
between the defendants 1 and 3. On behalf of the defendants, Gift/ Settlement
deed dated 22.10.2010 was marked as Ex.B1 and the electricity receipt was
marked as Ex.B2. The deed of exchange between the defendants 1 and 3 dated
22.12.2000 was examined as Ex.B3. The plaint filed in the connected suit
between the defendants 1 and 3 in O.S.Nos.54 & 79 of 2011 were marked as
Ex.B4 and B5. The sale deed dated 08.02.1993 for purchase of some more
properties was marked as Ex.B6. The written statement filed in O.S.No.79 of
2011 was marked as Ex.B7.
9.Thereafter, the Trial Court proceeded to hear the learned counsel on
either side and by a judgment dated 26.09.2013, after appraising the evidence
on record held that the second extent of property mentioned in Item No.1 of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.74 of 2013
suit schedule property, namely S.No.57/2, belonged to the 3rd defendant and
therefore, is not a joint family property and it is not available for partition. The
Trial Court held that on a perusal of Ex.A1, sale deed that the joint family
properties were sold and from the fact that the 1st defendant being the Kartha
did not get into the box and adduce evidence that it is a self acquired property,
found that the other extent of land in Item No.1, that is, S.No.105 belonged to
the joint family. Similarly, the Trial Court held that since the Item No.1 of the
property is a joint family property, being the land, since income has also arisen
out of it, Item No.2 of the property purchased by the 1st defendant will also be a
joint family property. Accordingly, it decreed the suit in part by granting 1/3rd
share to the plaintiff in the said items of the property. Aggrieved by the same,
the defendants 1 and 2 are before this Court by way of filing the present
appeal.
10.Heard Ms.T.Surekha, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellants.
11.Even though the notice is served, none appeared on behalf of the
respondents.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.74 of 2013
12. The learned Counsel taking this Court through Ex.A1, sale deed,
would submit that firstly even under Ex.A1, sale deed, it cannot be concluded
that what is sold is a joint family property, the sale deed also says that the
property sold are the self acquired properties of the vendors. Even otherwise, it
may be seen that the total sale consideration in Ex.A1, sale deed was
Rs.18,000/-. As per the sale deed itself, the entire property sold towards the
payment of debts. The purchasers themselves had advanced a sum of
Rs.10,000/- by way of a promissory note and Rs.10,000/- of the sale
consideration is adjusted towards the same and it is expressly mentioned in the
sale deed that the balance sum of Rs.8,000/- is towards miscellaneous debts of
the vendors. Therefore, she would submit that on the face of the document
under Ex.A1, it cannot be contended firstly that there was nucleus from joint
family property and secondly, the sale consideration was there for the 1st
defendant to purchase out of the same.
13. She would further submit that it is the admitted case of the parties
that the 1st defendant is an Ex-Serviceman, therefore, having his independent
income, viz., salary as well as pension, the 1st defendant need not get into the
box and establish. He can otherwise establish also. Only because the 1st
defendant was aged 75 years at the time of trial, he was unable to get into the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.74 of 2013
box and the 2nd defendant being the son was examined, that does not mean that
the 1st defendant did not defend this issue, when a written statement is duly
filed and the plaintiff was cross examined and other evidence has been let in on
behalf of the 1st defendant also, the Trial Court erred as if the 1st defendant did
not contest the issue.
14.Further, the learned Counsel would submit that in this case, the
property was also jointly purchased with the 3rd defendant. The 3rd defendant
has also let in evidence to the fact that the properties were purchased from their
own funds and they were in exclusive enjoyment and the property in question.
S.No.105 was obtained by way of deed of exchange dated 22.12.2000 and
therefore, cannot be said to be of coparcenary in character. Therefore, she
would submit that the Trial Court erred in decreeing the suit.
15.I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the appellants
and perused the material records of the case.
16.Firstly, in this case, evidently the title in respect of both the properties
stands in the name of the 1st defendant. The plaintiff has filed the suit alleging
that the properties were purchased out of the joint family nucleus. Therefore, it
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.74 of 2013
is for the plaintiff to discharge initial onus to prove that no joint family nucleus
was available and once that initial onus is discharged, the 1st defendant being
the Kartha, it is his onus to prove that it is his separate property and not joint
family property. With that background in mind, it can be seen from Ex.A1
itself, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants, there was
no any joint family nucleus left out of Ex.A1. This apart, the property in
schedule Item No.1 was purchased two years after the said sale and admittedly,
in this case, 1st defendant is an Ex-Serviceman having his independent salary as
well as pension.
17.In that view of the matter, in this case, I am of the view that the
plaintiff has not discharged her onus to prove the availability of the joint family
nucleus. As a matter of fact, the evidence produced by the plaintiff in the form
of Ex.A1 would only nullify the case of the plaintiff. Therefore, when the initial
onus itself is not discharged, there was no question of the 2nd defendant proving
that the property was his separate property and not a joint family property.
18.In that view of the matter, the finding of the Trial Court that the 1st
defendant did not get into the box and prove that the properties were separate
properties is erroneous and I am not in a position to agree with the same.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.74 of 2013
Admittedly, the 1st defendant had independent income. As a matter of fact, 2nd
item of the suit property is alloted to the 1st defendant under the Ex-Serviceman
quota and therefore, under no stretch of imagination, it can be held to be joint
family property. In that view of the matter, the findings of the Trial Court that
there was joint family nucleus and that the 1st defendant did not get into the box
and prove his case are unsustainable.
19.In view of my aforesaid findings, I am of the view that the answers of
the Trial Court in respects of issue Nos.1 to 4 are liable to be interfered with. I
answered Issue No.1 that the plaintiff is not entitled to any share in the Item
Nos.1 and 2 of the properties in the suit. I answered Issue No.2 that the
property in S.No.105, Kurukapuram Village as well as Item No.2 of the suit
schedule property being plot No.16, Thirumangalam Village, Anna Nagar,
Chennai are absolute properties of the 1st defendant and not joint family
properties. The said answers covers the issue No.3 also. In view of my answers
for the issue Nos.1 to 3, the Issue No.4 is answered that the plaintiff is not
entitled for any relief.
20.In the result, the Appeal Suit is allowed and the judgment and decree
of the learned Principal District Judge, Namakkal dated 26.09.2012 in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.74 of 2013
O.S.No.116 of 2011 is set aside and consequently, the suit in O.S.No.116 of
2011 shall stands dismissed. However, considering the facts and circumstances
of the case and the relationship between the parties, there shall be no order as to
costs.
15.09.2022
Index : yes/no
Speaking/Non-Speaking order
sp
To
The Principal District Judge, Namakkal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.74 of 2013
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.,
sp
A.S.No.74 of 2013
15.09.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
