Madras High Court
Veerabadran vs Kavitha Anand Alias A.Kavitha on 29 November, 2023
Author: R.Subramanian
Bench: R.Subramanian
A.S.No.564 of 2017
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 29.11.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR
A.S.No.564 of 2017
and
C.M.P.No.18830 of 2017
Veerabadran ...Appellant
Vs.
1.Kavitha Anand alias A.Kavitha
2.Minor A.Ramya
3.Minor A.Veerendharan
4.Rangammal ...Respondents
Prayer: Appeal Suit filed under Section 96 read with Order XLI Rule 1 of
the Code of Civil Procedure to set aside the judgment and decree in
O.S.No.619 of 2012 dated 06.08.2016 on the file of the First Additional
District Court, Coimbatore.
1/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.564 of 2017
For Appellant : Mr.S.Senthilnathan
For Respondents : Mrs.Reshmi Christy
********
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.)
The 1st defendant in O.S.No.619 of 2012, aggrieved by the grant
of a decree for partition in the said suit is on appeal.
2. The suit was laid by the respondents 1 to 3 seeking partition
and separate possession of their 2/3rd share in the suit properties on the
ground that they had purchased the shares of the 2nd and 3rd defendants in
the suit under two registered sale deeds dated 23.07.2008. The plaintiffs
would justify their claim for partition contending that the suit properties
belonged to one Kanniappa Gowder, who left behind three sons Badrappan,
Chinnasamy and Ramasamy. At a partition between the three sons of
Kanniappa Gowder, the suit properties measuring about 4 acres and 65
cents were allotted to the share of Badrappan, who died intestate on
25.08.1998, leaving behind his wife Bettammal, daughter Rangammal and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
son Veerabadran. It is the claim of the plaintiffs that the husband of the 1st
plaintiff V.Anand purchased the share of Bettammal and Rangammal, as
already stated, under the two sale deeds dated 23.07.2008.
3. The purchaser Anand died on 01.10.2008 leaving behind the
plaintiffs as his legal representatives and at a partition between the plaintiffs,
the mother and the brothers of Anand on 10.03.2010, the 2/3 rd share
purchased under the sale deed dated 23.07.2008 was allotted to the share of
the plaintiffs.
4. The plaintiffs would submit that since they were residing in
Chennai she had required the 1st defendant, son of Badrappan to look after
the property and he was paying her the share in the income also. Claiming
that it was no longer possible to continue joint enjoyment, the plaintiffs
sought for partition.
5. The suit was resisted by the defendants contending that the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
description of the property was incorrect. The plaintiffs have shown only
2/3rd share that was purchased by Anand as suit property and therefore the
suit is liable to be dismissed. It was the further contention that the sale in
favour of Anand happened during the pendency of the suit for partition filed
by the 3rd defendant herein viz., Rangammal in O.S.No.118 of 2002 and the
said suit having been dismissed for default, the alienation made during the
pendency of the suit is not valid. It was also contended that the claim of
joint possession is not true and the plaintiffs being alienees cannot take
advantage of Section 37(2) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits
Valuation Act, 1955 and Court fee should have been paid under Section
Section 37(1) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955.
6. It was also the contention of the 1 st defendant that the suit
properties were ancestral properties and hence as the son, he would be
entitled to a half share and the defendants 2 and 3 who are the wife and
daughter would be entitled to only 1/6th share viz., 1/3rd share in the ½ share
of Badrappan.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7. On the above pleadings the learned trial Judge framed the
following issues:
1) Whether the suit properties are ancestral
properties in the hands of Badrappa Gowder or his separate
properties?
2) Whether the defendants 2 and 3 have salable
interest in the suit schedule property and if so, what is their
share?
3) Whether the sale deed dated 23.07.2008
executed by the 2nd and 3rd defendant in favour of the 1st
plaintiff's husband Anand is binding on the first defendant?
4) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for partition
andseperate possession of their 2/3rd share in the suit
property?
5) Whether the plaintiffs have paid proper Court
fee?
8. At trial, the 1st plaintiff was examined as PW1 and Exs.A1 to A8
were marked. The 1st defendant was examined as DW1 and two other
witnesses DW2 and DW3 were examined on his side. Exs.B1 to B12 were
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
marked.
9. On a consideration of the evidence on record, the learned trial
Court concluded that the properties are self-acquired properties of
Kanniappa Gowder and therefore once they are allotted under the partition
between the sons of Kanniappa Gowder, Badrappan would take it as his
self-acquired property and it will not assume the character of ancestral
property in the hands of Badrappan. The learned trial Judge also found that
the plaintiffs who are the co-owners are presumed to be in joint possession
since there was no evidence of exclusion of enjoyment by the plaintiffs.
Since there was no issue relating to the plea of lis pendens, the trial Court
did not answer the same. The defense regarding description of the property
did not survive since the suit schedule was amended subsequently by
making the entire property subject matter of the suit. On the above findings,
the learned trial Judge granted a decree for partition as prayed for.
Aggrieved the 1st defendant is on appeal. The mother/ the 2nd defendant died
pending suit.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
10. We have heard Mr.S.Senthilnathan, learned counsel appearing
for the appellants and Mrs.Reshmi Christy, learned counsel appearing for
the respondents 1 to 3. The 4th respondent though served is not appearing
either in person or through counsel duly instructed.
11. Mr.S.Senthilnathan, learned counsel appearing for the
appellants would vehemently contend that the trial Court ought to have held
that the sale deed executed during the pendency of O.S.No.118 of 2002
which was subsequently dismissed for default would be invalid and
therefore the suit for partition at the instance of the purchaser is not
maintainable. He would also point out that the theory of joint possession
cannot be accepted since the plaintiffs are purchasers and they were
excluded from possession.
12. Contending contra Mrs.Reshmi Christy, learned counsel
appearing for the respondents would submit that the doctrine of lis pendens
would not apply since the suit was dismissed for default. The only bar that
would be attracted is the bar created under Order IX Rule 9 of the Code of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Civil Procedure, which only precludes a suit on the same cause of action.
According to her, the suit in O.S.No.118 of 2002 being one for partition it
was always open to the plaintiffs to make another demand and create a fresh
cause of action and file another suit. Therefore, according to the learned
counsel, the dismissal for default of O.S.No.118 of 2002 will not preclude
the purchasers from the plaintiffs therein to launch a suit for partition
subsequently.
13. On the above contentions of the learned counsel, the following
points arise for determination.
1) Whether the sale deeds dated 23.07.2008 can be
said to be hit by the doctrine of lis pendens.
2) Whether the trial Court was right in concluding
that the plaintiffs can avail the benefit of Section 37(2) of the
Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955.
Point No.1:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
14. On the first contention regarding lis pendens, we have no
hesitation in concluding that it has to be rejected at the out set. Section 52
of the Transfer of Property Act, requires that in order to apply the doctrine of
lis pendens a suit or proceeding, in which the right to immovable property is
directly and specifically in question, to be pending and the transfer in such
case is made subject to the result of the said proceeding.
15. Admittedly, O.S.No.118 of 2002 was only dismissed for
default and there was no determination on the rights of the parties on merits.
As we have already pointed out Order IX Rule 9 of the Code of Civil
Procedure only bars a subsequent suit on the same cause of action.
Therefore, there is no bar for the plaintiffs to file a subsequent suit for
partition based on the sale deeds. Since there is no actual determination of
the rights of the parties on the merits of the claim, the doctrine of lis
pendens cannot be invoked. We therefore answer Point No.1 against the
appellants.
Point No.2:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
16. As regards Point No.2 it is the contention of
Mr.S.Senthilnathan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the
plaintiffs being strangers are not entitled to claim joint possession. Section
37(2) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955, only
enables payment of fixed Court fee by co-owners, who are in joint
possession of the property. The plaintiffs have categorically alleged in the
plaint that they have not been excluded from the possession and the 1 st
defendant has been sharing the income with them. The liability to pay Court
fee will have to be decided on the averments in the plaint and once it is
avered that the plaintiffs are in joint possession, we do not think we can
mulct the liability to pay higher Court fee on the plaintiffs, that too, in a suit
for partition. The trial Court has considered the issue and has arrived at a
conclusion that the plaintiffs being in joint possession are entitled to invoke
Section 37(2) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955.
We therefore do not find any reason to interfere with the issue of Court fee
also.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
17. Though Mr.S.Senthilnathan, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant would attempt to argue on the nature of the property viz., ancestral
or self-acquired, we do not find any merit in the said contention also,
because, the fact that the properties were self-acquired property of
Kanniappa Gowder is admitted and on his death it was inherited by
Badrappan and his brothers as Class I heirs under Section 8 of the hindu
Succession Act 1956. There was a partition between him and his brothers.
Therefore, the self-acquired property of the father allotted to a son at a
partition between the sons will not assume the character of the ancestral
property. The same will remain self-acquired property, more so, because
Kanniappan Gowder died in 1965, that is, after coming into force of the
Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
18. We do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment and
decree of the trial Court. The appeal is dismissed confirming the judgment
and decree of the trial Court. We however make no order as to costs in this
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
appeal. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
(R.S.M.,J.) (N.S.,J.)
29.11.2023
dsa
Index :No
Internet :Yes
Neutral Citation :No
Speaking order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
The I Additional District Judge,
Coimbatore.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
and
N.SENTHILKUMAR, J.
dsa
29.11.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
