Madras High Court
Rajaraman vs Nachiar Ammal on 25 April, 2023
S.A.No.500 of 2001
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 25.04.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN
S.A.No.500 of 2001
Rajaraman ... Appellant
Vs.
1.Nachiar Ammal
2.Loganathan ... Respondents
Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil
Procedure against the Judgment and decree dated 14.09.2000 in
A.S.No.4 of 2000 on the file of the Court of Additional District
Judge, Pondicherry at Karaikal, confirming the Judgment and
decree dated 23.04.1999 in O.S.No.14 of 1998 on the file of Court
of Principal District Munsif at Karaikal.
For Appellant : Mr.T.Ganesan
For Respondents : Mr.R.Sunil Kumar
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No 1 of 8
S.A.No.500 of 2001
JUDGMENT
The defendant in O.S.No.14 of 1998 on the file of the Court of
Principal District Munsif at Karaikal, who was the appellant in
A.S.No.4 of 2000 on the file of the Court of Additional District Judge,
Pondicherry at Karaikal, is the appellant before this Court.
2. This is an appeal, which arises against a suit presented by the
plaintiffs/respondents herein seeking for recovery of possession of
'A'-Schedule Property and for grant of permanent injunction with respect
to the 'B'-Schedule Property and for mesne profits of Rs.50/- per month
from the date of plaint till the date of actual delivery.
3. The Trial Court had partly decreed the suit by dismissing the suit
with respect to the reliefs 1 and 3, namely, for recovery of possession and
for mesne profits but granted the relief of permanent injunction with
respect to the 'B'-Schedule Property. The 'B'-Schedule Property is a
Bajanai Madam situated in S.No.140/358.
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No 2 of 8
S.A.No.500 of 2001
4. Both the plaintiffs as well as the defendant claim the property
through a Will, which said to have been executed by one Govindaraju
Chettiar. The said Will was executed on 26.09.1972.
5. As per the Will, the house property situated in R.S.No.140/357
and the Bajanai Madam situated in R.S.No.140/358 were alloted to the
plaintiffs/respondents. The defendant and his brother Sivarajan were
allotted house property situated in R.S.No.140/359.
6. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the defendant along with his
brother making claim over the Wall of the Bajanai Madam on the ground
that their property is adjacent to the Bajanai Madam and therefore, they
are entitled to claim it as co-owners. The Trial Court did not agree to this
claim and partly decreed the suit as aforesaid. The Lower Appellate
Court has confirmed the said findings.
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No 3 of 8
S.A.No.500 of 2001
7. This appeal was admitted on 04.04.2001 on the following
Substantial Questions of Law:-
“a. Whether the Court below is correct in granting
permanent injunction in respect of B-schedule property
on the appellant and respondents, who are co-owners of
the same?
b. Whether the Court below is correct in accepting
the claim of the respondents without proving the title of
the B-schedule property?
c. Is it not duty of the Court below to take into
consideration the report of Advocate Commissioner
while deciding the actual disputes between the parties?”
8. The entire issue relates to the interpretation of the Will of Late
Govindaraju Chettiar. For the purpose of satisfying myself, I have gone
through the Will, which was marked as Ex.A1.
9. As per the Will, the allotment was made as follows:-
"nkw;go jpUkiyuhad;gl;odk; lt[dpy;.
Mz;lhsk;khs; kidf;Fk; fpHf;F. vdJ tPl;ow;Fk;
nkw;F. bt';fnlrg;bgUkhs; bjw;F tPjpf;Fk;
tlf;F. FkuntY brl;oahh;. rptnef brl;oahh;
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No 4 of 8
S.A.No.500 of 2001
,th;fs; kidf;Fk; bjw;F/ ,e;j ehd;F
vy;iyfSf;F cl;gl;l ,lj;jpy; ,Uf;Fk; g$id
klj;ija[k;. mjd; nky;g[wKs;s fl;Lf; nfhg;gf
[ f
; y;
tPli
; la[k; mijr; nrh;ej
; bfhy;iyiaa[k; vdJ
kidtp ehr;rhuk;khs; Ma[st
; iu mDgtpj;J. mts;
Ma[Sf;Fg;gpd;. vdj VHhtJ kfd; nyhfehjd;
mile;J mDgtpj;Jf; bfhs;s ntz;oaJ/
nkw;go jpUkiyuhad;gl;odk; lt[dpy;.
bt';fnlrg;bgUkhs; nky tPjpapy;. nkw;go tPjpf;F
nkw;F. g$id klj;jpw;Fk; fpHf;F.
bt';fnlrg;bgUkhs; bjw;F tPjpf;F tlf;F.
FkuntY brl;oahh;. rptner brl;oahh; ,th;fs;
kidf;Fj; bjw;F/ ,e;J ehd;F vy;iyfSf;F
cl;gl;l fl;Lf; nfhg;gf
[ f
; y; tPl;od; fPH;g[wk;
rhpghjpiaa[k;. mijr; nrh;ej
; bfhy;iy
rhpghjpiaa[k; vdJ Ie;jhtJ kfd; rptuh$;
mile;J mDgtpj;Jf; bfhs;s ntz;oaJ/
nkny tptuk; fz;Ls;s ehd;F vy;iyfSf;F
cl;gl;l fl;Lf;nfhg;gf
[ f
; y; tPl;od; nky;g[wk;
rhpghjpiaa[k;. mijr; nrh;ej
; bfhy;iyiaa[k;.
vdJ MwhtJ kfd; uh$huhkd; mile;J
mDgtp[jJ
; f; bfhs;s ntz;oaJ/@
10. A reading of the Will makes it very clear that the division of the
property was not on the basis of measurements but on basis of the
structures as it is.
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No 5 of 8
S.A.No.500 of 2001
11. Going by the structures, the Stone House and the Bajanai
Madam, were allotted, with the land appurtenant to the
plaintiffs/respondents. The Stone House is corresponds to
R.S.No.140/357 and R.S.No.140/358. Similarly, one Sivarajan, brother
of the defendant/appellant, who has not been impleaded to the suit and
Rajaraman, the defendant/appellant herein were allotted the Stone House.
There is no dispute in the minds of the parties regarding structures which
were allotted. Both of them agreed to the Will and they have not
disputed that Late Govindaraju Chettiar had the disposing power to
execute the documents.
12. Having been benefited under the documents, the parties have to
stand by it.
13. The perusal of the Will as aforesaid, shows that Nachiar
Ammal and Loganathan, the plaintiffs/respondents are co-owners for the
first Stone House and Bajanai Madam and Sivaraj and Rajaram, the
defendant/appellant and his brother are the co-owners of other properties.
One cannot claim a right over the other.
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No 6 of 8
S.A.No.500 of 2001
14. Consequently, the issue of treating Bajanai Madam as a
property, which is jointly owned by the plaintiffs/respondents and the
defendant/appellant does not arise.
15. The said Govindaraju Chettiar has been very careful in
allocation of the properties by structures and not by measurements. This
issue has been considered by the Trial Court and by the Lower Appellate
Court.
16. The questions of law framed by the defendant/appellant for
consideration in this appeal did not arise for consideration.
17. Therefore, the Judgments and decrees of the learned Principal
District Munsif, Karaikal in O.S.No.14 of 1998 on 23.04.1999 and that of
the learned Additional District Judge, Pondicherry at Karaikal in
A.S.No.4 of 2000 on 14.09.2000 stands confirmed. The suit is decreed
only insofar as the permanent injunction is concerned.
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No 7 of 8
S.A.No.500 of 2001
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
arb
18. In the result, the Second Appeal is dismissed. No costs.
25.04.2023
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
arb
To:
1.The Additional District Judge,
Pondicherry at Karaikal.
2.The Principal District Munsif,
Karaikal.
3.The Section Officer,
Vernacular Section,
High Court of Madras.
S.A.No.500 of 2001
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No 8 of 8
