Madras High Court
Karungutti Ayinan vs Chinna Ayinan on 29 March, 2023
S.A.(MD)No.217 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 29.03.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE
S.A.(MD)No.217 of 2022
Karungutti Ayinan ... Appellant
/Vs./
1.Chinna Ayinan
2.Jayamani
3.Junior Engineer,
O & M, TNEB, Ayyampalayam Village,
Musiri Taluk,
Trichirappalli District.
4.Executive Engineer,
O & M, TNEB, Mettupatti,
Musiri Taluk,
Trichirappalli District.
5.The Superintendent Engineer,
North Distribution,
Mannarpuram,
TNEB, Trichirappalli. ... Respondents
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.(MD)No.217 of 2022
PRAYER: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure
Code to set aside the Judgment and Decree dated 19.05.2017 in A.S.No.
173 of 2014 on the file of the learned II Additional Subordinate Judge,
Trichirappalli, confirming the Judgment and decree dated 17.06.2014
passed in O.S.No.42 of 2011 on the file of the learned District Munsif,
Musiri and allow the above Second Appeal.
For Appellant : Mr.P.Ganapathi Subramanian
For Respondents : Mr.B.Ramanathan (R3 and R4)
Standing Counsel
JUDGMENT
This second appeal has been filed challenging the concurrent
findings of the Courts below. The appellant is the plaintiff in the suit in
O.S.No.42 of 2011 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Musiri. The
suit was filed for partition in respect of the suit schedule property and for
permanent injunction and also for declaration and the plaintiff had
claimed half share in the same. In the forthcoming paragraphs, the
parties are described as per their litigative status in the suit.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.(MD)No.217 of 2022
2. The plaintiff and the first defendant are the brothers and the
second defendant is the wife of the first defendant. The plaintiff has
questioned the sale deed dated 22.11.2006 executed by his mother, Periya
Eluthal in favour of the second defendant, which has been marked as
Ex.B3 before the trial Court. According to the plaintiff, the suit schedule
property was purchased from and out of the income of the joint family
properties standing in the name of Periya Eluthal, the mother of the
plaintiff as well as the first defendant.
3. As seen from the written statement, the defendants would
contend that the property was not purchased from the income of the joint
family properties or had been purchased by the plaintiff, the first
defendant and his father as alleged in the plaint. Therefore, the
defendants would categorically contend that the suit schedule property
absolutely belonged to Periya Eluthal and the sale deed dated 22.11.2006
(Ex.A1 and Ex.B3) executed by her in favour of the second defendant is
absolutely valid.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.(MD)No.217 of 2022
4. Before the trial Court, the plaintiff filed 11 documents, which
were marked as Exs.A1 to A11. Three witnesses were also examined on
his side, namely, P.W.1 to P.W.3. On the side of the defendants, four
documents were filed, which were marked as Exs.B1 to B4. The
documents filed by the defendants included the original sale deed dated
22.11.2006 standing in the name of the second defendant (Ex.B3) and the
patta dated 06.09.2010 (Ex.B4) also standing in the name of the second
defendant.
5. The trial Court namely, the District Munsif Court, Musiri, by its
judgment and decree dated 17.07.2014 dismissed the suit in O.S.No.42 of
2011 filed by the plaintiff on the ground that the plaintiff has not
produced any evidence to prove that the suit schedule property was
purchased out of joint family funds of the plaintiff, his father and his
mother, Periya Eluthal. None of the documents filed by the plaintiff are
relevant for the purpose of establishing the plaintiff's claim that the suit
schedule property was purchased out of the joint family funds. However,
on the side of the defendants, their documents namely, Exs.B1 to B4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.(MD)No.217 of 2022
clearly reveal that the second defendant is in possession of the suit
schedule property ever since her purchase from Periya Eluthal through
the sale deed dated 22.11.2006 (Ex.B3). The patta dated 06.09.2010 also
stands in the name of the second defendant. The trial Court has also
relied upon Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, which makes
it clear that the property of a female Hindu is her absolute property.
6. Based on the oral and documentary evidence available on record
as well as by relying upon Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956,
the trial Court has rightly dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff, as no
iota of evidence has been produced by the plaintiff to show that the suit
property was purchased out of joint family funds. The plaintiff has also
not challenged the sale deed (Ex.A1) in the suit, but has only filed the
suit for partition and other reliefs. This Court does not find any infirmity
in the findings of the trial Court.
7. The lower appellate Court in the first appeal filed by the plaintiff
before the II Additional Sub Court, Tiruchirappalli in the Appeal Suit No.
173 of 2014, by its Judgment and decree dated 19.05.2017 has rightly
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.(MD)No.217 of 2022
confirmed the findings of the trial Court by dismissing the first appeal
filed by the plaintiff. The substantial questions of law raised by the
plaintiff in the grounds of this second appeal have already been
considered by the Courts below only in accordance with law. Since the
plaintiff has not produced any iota of evidence to substantiate his claim
that the suit schedule property was purchased out of joint family funds,
the Courts below have rightly dismissed the suit and appeal, based on the
oral and documentary evidence available on record. There are no
debatable issues of fact or law involved, which requires further
consideration of this Court under Section 100 of C.P.C. There is no merit
in this second appeal and accordingly, this Second Appeal is dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
29.03.2023
Index : Yes / No
NCC : Yes / No
Sm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.(MD)No.217 of 2022
TO:
1.The II Additional Subordinate Judge, Trichirappalli.
2.The District Munsif, Musiri.
3.The Section Officer,
VR Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.(MD)No.217 of 2022
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
Sm
Judgment made in
S.A.(MD)No.217 of 2022
Dated:
29.03.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
