Madras High Court
D. Araamuthu vs T. Subramania Mudaliar on 20 November, 2024
Author: J.Nisha Banu
Bench: J.Nisha Banu
A.S.No.672 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 12.08.2024
PRONOUNCED ON : 20.11.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU
AND
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R.KALAIMATHI
A.S.No.672 of 2017
1. D. Araamuthu
2. A. Kalavathi ... Appellants/
Defendants 1 & 2
Vs.
T. Subramania Mudaliar ...Respondent / Plaintiff
PRAYER: Appeal Suit filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil
Procedure against the Judgment and Decree dated 16.09.2017 in O.S.No.34
of 2015 on the file of Court of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Vellore @Ranipet, Vellore District.
For Appellants : Mr.A.K.Sriram, Senior counsel
for Mr.Venkatesh Mohanraj
For Respondent : Mr.M.Venkadesh Kumar
******
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.1 of 23
A.S.No.672 of 2017
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court made by J.NISHA BANU, J.)
Aggrieved over the Judgment and Decree dated 16.09.2017 made
in O.S.No.34 of 2015 on the file of II Additional District and Sessions Judge
Vellore @ Ranipet, Vellore District, the aggrieved defendants 1 and 2 therein
have preferred the present Appeal Suit before this Court under Section 96 of
the Civil Procedure Code r/w Order 41 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code
seeking to set aside the decreetal order.
2. The crux of the case is that Suit in O.S.No.34 of 2015 was filed
by the plaintiff/ respondent herein, seeking to cancel the registered
settlement deed dated 22.11.2010 executed by the plaintiff in favour of the
first defendant; for granting mandatory injunction thereby directing the
defendants to cancel the registered settlement deed, dated 22.09.2011
created by them in respect of the suit properties and further by granting
permanent injunction restraining the defendants from in any way creating
any alienations or encumbrance over the suit property to the detriment of the
plaintiff's right and title over the same.
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3. First and foremost, the plaintiff is the elder brother of the first
defendant and the second defendant is the wife of the first defendant. For the
sake of convenience, the parties are referred by their ranks mentioned in the
Court below. The pleadings canvassed by Mr.A.K.Sriram, learned Senior
counsel appearing on behalf of Mr.Venkatesh Mohanraj, learned counsel for
the appellants / defendants 1 & 2 are as follows:-
3.1. Late Desappa Mudaliar is the father of the plaintiff as well as
the first defendant and during his life span, he acquired number of properties
by way of inheritance and also purchased number of properties in his name
as well as his sons' name and all of them were living as joint family under
one roof. In the year 1979, the first defendant joined in the Indian Army
Service and he was sending his salary to his father regularly upto the year
1981.
3.2. After the demise of their father, the plaintiff became the Karta
of the family and thereafter, the first defendant continued to send his salary
to the plaintiff and his mother. Out of the money sent by the first defendant
as well the money obtained from other joint family income, the plaintiff
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
purchased number of properties in the name of the plaintiff, his brothers,
including the first defendant, his mother and in the name of the plaintiff's
wife. The learned Senior counsel also contended that the plaintiff started
different kinds of businesses in his name, his wife's name as well as in the
name of his son from the income that came from the joint family nucleus. At
the same time, the learned Senior Counsel also submitted that the plaintiff,
by using the salary sent by the first defendant, has purchased properties in
the name of his wife under the colour of the joint family, for which the sale
consideration and registration charges for those properties were paid by the
first defendant alone. Therefore, according to the learned senior counsel, the
first defendant is the owner of the suit properties and the plaintiff's wife is
only a name lender of those properties.
3.3. After retiring from the Indian Army Service, the first
defendant requested the plaintiff to re-transfer those purchased properties to
his name. In this regard, the plaintiff has advised the first defendant that if he
had to transfer the properties which stood in the name of the plaintiff's wife's
name to the first defendant's name, it would incur several lakhs of rupees
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
towards registration charges. Rather, if a settlement deed is obtained for
those properties that stood in the name of the plaintiff's wife's name to the
plaintiff's name and in turn, the plaintiff shall give those properties vide
settlement deed to the first defendant thereafter, then, a huge amount of
money shall be saved. Since the first defendant agreed to the same,
settlement deeds were executed on 15.11.2010 and on 22.11.2010. Even for
obtaining those settlement deeds, the expenditure incurred was borne by the
first defendant alone. As a karta of the Hindu joint family, the plaintiff
retained all the original title deeds in his custody.
3.4. After the settlement deeds between the plaintiff and the first
defendant was executed, the first defendant effected mutation and executed a
registered settlement deed in favour of his wife, who is the second defendant
and the second defendant alone was enjoying the said properties in her own
accord. The main contention of the learned Senior counsel is that the suit
properties are separate properties of the first defendant and he executed
registered settlement deed in his wife's name. Therefore, the plaintiff nor his
wife have no claim or interest or title over the said properties. The plaintiff
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
with an ulterior motive has filed the suit with false particulars in O.S.No.34
of 2015.
3.5. Moreover, at the instigation of the plaintiff, one of his sister
has filed a suit in O.S.No.10 of 2015 for partition of the joint family
properties. According to the learned Senior Counsel, with an intention to
grab the properties of the first defendant, the plaintiff has played fraud and
has filed the suit in O.S.No.34 of 2015. The Court below, without
considering the merits of the case, has granted the decree in favour of the
plaintiff, which is liable to be set aside.
3.6. It is the specific allegation made by the plaintiff that the
properties were transferred in the name of the first defendant, only for the
purpose of obtaining IOCL Dealership, which was published in the Tamil
Daily Dinakaran dated 14.02.2010 calling for applications from Ex-
serviceman for appointment of petrol bunk dealers. According to the learned
Senior Counsel, the observation made by the lower Court is unsustainable for
the reason that when the plaintiff has deposed during the cross examination
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
that the first defendant has shown an advertisement dated 14.03.2010
published in the Dinakaran newspaper and on that date, it can be averred that
the first defendant was still serving in the Indian Army. If that being the case,
the first defendant retired from service only on 31.07.2010 and therefore, the
first defendant did not submit any application for petrol bunk dealership on
the basis of the advertisement published on 14.03.2010. Hence, the plaintiff
has falsely projected the case and fabricated the records to play fraud on the
first defendant. Accordingly, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that the
decree granted in favour of the plaintiff in O.S.No.34 of 2015 on the file of
II Additional District and Sessions Judge Vellore @ Ranipet, Vellore District
deserves to be set aside and therefore, prayed for allowing this appeal suit.
4. Per contra, Mr.M.Venkadesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the respondent herein elucidates the following:-
4.1. The learned counsel submits that the property described in the
schedule originally belonged to his wife Mrs.Lakshmi Ammal, as she
purchased the same under the registered sale deeds dated 29.01.1982,
04.02.1982 and 29.10.1984 from various persons. The said Lakshmi Ammal
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
was in possession and enjoyment of the said properties by having patta for
the said lands in her name and paying kist for the said lands, as they were
referred as cultivable lands in Government Revenue records.
4.2. The first defendant, who is the younger brother of the plaintiff
was employed in Defence service and got retired in the year 2010. After
retirement, the first defendant has informed the plaintiff, regarding the retail
outlet of IOCL for running a petrol bunk, which is reserved for ex-service
man category. In order to avail the outlet of IOCL, the first defendant
informed the plaintiff that for obtaining the retail outlet, the first defendant is
required to show that the suit properties stand in his name for the purpose of
applying under the 'ex-service man' category. Therefore, the first defendant
instigated the plaintiff to transfer the suit properties from the name of the
plaintiff's wife to the name of the plaintiff and thereafter, to transfer the same
to the name of the first defendant.
4.3. According to the learned counsel for the respondent, the first
defendant has promised to cancel the 'to-be executed' registered settlement
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
agreement deed, if no such outlet of IOCL was granted to the first defendant.
On such promise, the plaintiff executed the registered settlement deed dated
15.11.2010 in respect of the suit properties that stood in the name of his wife
Lakshmi Ammal and then executed the registered settlement deed dated
22.1.2020 in the name of the first defendant to enable him to apply for the
outlet of IOCL.
4.4. Further the learned counsel would state that the survey field
numbers, viz. 942/1A1B was left out in the sale deed and in the registered
settlement deed that was executed by the plaintiff in favour of the first
defendant, it was mistakenly referred as 941/3. Therefore, the first defendant
wanted to execute a correction deed in respect of the said survey number and
by including the new sub-divisions of the survey fields under the registered
correction deed dated 31.01.2011.
4.5. For the sake of making application for the retail outlet of
IOCL , the original of the registered settlement deed dated 22.11.2010 and
the correction deed dated 31.01.2011 were handed over to the first defendant
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
but the possession of the lands were not delivered to him. Whenever the
plaintiff asked about the status of the application for retail outlet of IOCL,
the first defendant would state that the application is under scrutiny and the
outlet of IOCL would be granted to the first defendant. Lastly on 31.01.2013,
the plaintiff came to know that the said outlet of IOCL was not granted to the
first defendant and when the plaintiff questioned him, the first defendant
gave evasive answers. The learned counsel for the respondent would state
that both the first defendant and his wife/ second defendant colluded together
and created false and vexatious registered deed of settlement dated
22.09.2011 in respect of the suit properties by taking advantage of the
registered settlement deed dated 22.11.2010 and the correction deed dated
31.01.2011.
4.6. The learned counsel for the respondent would further submit
that the plaintiff, on availing certified copy of the said registered settlement
deed dated 22.09.2011 alleged to have been executed by the first defendant
in favour of the second defendant on 04.02.2013, he came to know that he
was cheated by the first defendant and the registered settlement deed dated
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
22.11.2010 and the correction deed dated 31.01.2011 were obtained by the
first defendant, only with an intention to grab the properties under the guise
of making application for the retail outlet of IOCL.
4.7. The learned counsel further contended that the suit lands were
also not delivered to the first defendant. He would contend that the registered
settlement deed dated 22.11.2010 and the correction deed dated 31.01.2011
are not true and valid documents and the same were availed by the first
defendant by playing fraud upon the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff and his
wife lodged a complaint before the police station against both the defendants
under the Land Grabbing Prohibition Cell at Vellore on 15.11.2014 and the
same is pending for enquiry. Thereafter, the plaintiff issued a notice dated
02.03.2015 to the defendants by calling upon them to cancel the said
documents dated 22.11.2010, 31.01.2011 and 22.09.2011 and to execute a
registered document in favour of the plaintiff to clear the cloud at the Sub-
Registrar office over the suit properties, within a week from the date of
receipt of such notice.
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4.8. The first defendant has received the above said notice on
04.03.2015 and the notice addressed to the second respondent was not yet
returned. Subsequently, the plaintiff filed a suit to cancel the said registered
settlement deed dated 22.11.2010 executed by the plaintiff in favour of the
first defendant and for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to
cancel the other documents following the said registered settlement deed, for
permanent injunction restraining the defendants from in any way creating
any alienation or encumbrance over the suit properties and for other reliefs.
5. The Trial Court framed the following issues:
"1. Whether the suit properties are separate properties of 1st
defendant?
2. Whether the Suit is barred by Limitation?
3. Whether the Suit is Bad for non joinder of necessary
parties?
4. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for cancellation of
document dated 22.11.2010?
5. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for declaration as prayed
for?
6. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction?
7. To What relief?
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6. Before the Trial Court, the plaintiff examined two witnesses-
PW.1 and P.W.2 and exhibits Ex.A.1 to 16 have been marked. On the side of
defendants, DW1 was examined and exhibits Ex.B.1 to 15 have been
marked.
7. The Trial Court, after analysing the oral and documentary
evidence filed on either side, found that the Registered Settlement deed dated
22.11.2010 is null and void as the property was transferred only for getting
the outlet of IOCL, as no prudent person would gift the property of value
more than 67 lakhs for love and affection. Therefore, the Court below held
that the properties cannot be considered as a separate property of the 1st
defendant. With regard to the period of limitation of the suit, the trial Court
held that the same is within the limitation; the suit is not affected by non-
joinder of necessary parties and passed a decreetal order in favour of the
plaintiff. Aggrieved over the same, the defendants filed the present Appeal
Suit.
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
8. This Court heard the submissions made by both the learned
counsel for the appellants/defendants 1 & 2 as well as the respondent
/plaintiff and perused the materials placed before this Court.
9. The points for determination that arise in the present appeal are
as follows:-
i) Whether the Registered Settlement Deed dated 22.11.2010
executed by the Respondent in favour of the 1st Appellant
under Ex.S.6 and Ex.B.4 is liable to be cancelled?
ii) Whether the Registered Settlement Deed dated 22.09.2011
executed by the 1st Appellant in favour of the 2nd Appellant
under Ex.A.8 and Ex.B9 is liable to be declared as Null and
void?
10. It is pertinent to note that the respondent/plaintiff stated that
the property was purchased in the name of his wife under Ex.A.1 to 4 as
early as in 1982 and 1984. The 1 st appellant/1st defendant stated that the said
property was purchased from and out of his income after joining in the Army.
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
It can also be transpired from Ex.B.15 that the 1st appellant/1st defendant
joined service in March 1979. It is the 1st defendant’s evidence before the
trial court that his earning was sent to his father and he used the same to
purchase the properties in the name of his family members and one such
property is the suit property. The trial court has also pointed out that the suit
property was acquired by the plaintiff’s wife in the year 1982.
11. It is translucent that the 1st defendant has not let in any
evidence to show what was his income and what amount was sent from his
savings to the family headed by his father or if given to the plaintiff, what
was the specific amount transferred for the purchase of the suit properties.
Therefore, there is no nexus or evidence to show the source of income of the
1st defendant for the purchase of the property in the name of plaintiff’s wife
viz., Lakshmiammal. Neither there is any reason to state why those properties
were not purchased in the name of defendants, if at all, the money was
sourced by the first defendant by way of sending his salary. The trial court
holding so, rejected the argument of the defendants that the property is a
benami one, as the said contention was not substantiated through valid
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
documents by the defendants. Admittedly, during the cross examination, the
1st defendant himself has stated that the property is an absolute property of
his sister-in-law viz., Lakshmiammal and that she has been enjoying the
property as her absolute property.
12. Even though it is the contention of the 1st defendant that he is
the owner of the said property and the plaintiff's wife is only the name
lender, the evidence and the case of the defendants is totally contra to the
stand taken by them and there is no evidence to show that they are the
absolute owners of the suit properties. In the judgment made in
Ponnuswamy vs. Meenakshi Ammal and others reported in 1989 2 LW
227, the relevant portion of the said order is extracted hereunder:-
“Proof of the existence of a joint family does not lead to the
presumption that property held by any member of the family is
joint, and the burden rests upon anyone asserting that any item of
property was joint to establish the fact. But where it is established
that the family possessed some joint property which from its
nature and relative value may have formed the nucleus from
which the property in question may have been acquired, the
burden shifts to the party alleging self-acquisition to establish
affirmatively that the property was acquired without the aid of the
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
joint family property." "Whether the evidence adduced by the
plaintiff was sufficient to shift the burden whichinitially rested on
him of establishing that there was adequate nucleus out of which
the acquisitions could have been made is one of fact depending on
the nature and the extent of the nucleus. The important thing to
consider is the income which the nucleus yields. A building in the
occupation of the members of a family and yielding no income
could not be a nucleus out of which acquisition could be made,
even though it must be of considerable value. On the other hand, a
running business in which the capital invested is comparatively
small might conceivably produce substantial income, which may
well from the foundation of the subsequent acquisitions. These are
not abstract questions of law, but questions of fact to be
determined on the evidence in the case.
He also relies upon the decision of this Court in Srinivasan v.
Sundaramoorthi and Ranganayaki Ammal v. Snnivasan in support
of his contention that if the property stands in the name of a co-
parcener of joint family, mere proof of the existence of the joint
family owning some joint family property does not give rise to any
presumption and that it must be established that there was
sufficient nucleus of the joint family for purchasing the property
which stands in the name of the co-parcener. In so far the
principles laid down in all these cases are concerned there cannot
be any difference of opinion.”
In the present case, the burden of proof shifts upon the first
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
defendant, who alleges the ownership of the suit properties as his separate
property, which was purchased out of his salary and it is for the first
defendant to establish affirmatively that the property was acquired without
the aid of the joint family income, which the first defendant failed to do so.
13. Further, the Court below has pointed out that the deposition of
1st defendant is that it is a family arrangement in which he was allotted the
suit property. If that being the case, there arises a question as to why only the
deed of settlement was given to the defendants, while all other original
documents were retained by the plaintiff. If at all it is going to be a family
arrangement, then why the properties that stood in the name of Lakshmi
Ammal/sister-in-law of the defendant could be transferred in the name of the
first defendant under the cover of family arrangements. It could be averred
that the first defendant could not explain what was the family arrangements
and what were the properties arranged to be settled to the family members
and to who and whom the properties were settled. Considering the above
aspects, there is no iota of truth in the contention of family arrangement
made by the first defendant. Further, the reason for re-transfer in the name of
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
his wife/ second defendant is also not explained satisfactorily by the first
defendant. All these facts and circumstances, substantiates the intention of
the 1st defendant was to grab the suit properties from the plaintiff and his
wife.
14. Moreover, it can be specifically averred from the cross
examination of the first defendant, wherein, he himself has admitted that an
application was made for the IOCL outlet dealership and he has attended the
interview on 17.02.2011; but carefully replied that he did not know the date
of the advertisement. On the contra, in the grounds, at paragraph no.7
submitted in support of this present Appeal, the appellant/first defendant has
stated that on the date of advertisement, he was not eligible for applying for
the IOCL dealership, as at that point of time, he was still in service. These
contra statements triggers suspicion on the genuineness of the statements
made by the first defendant and he has not come to the Court with clean
hands.
15. Even though there shall be no evidence contrary to the recitals
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
of the registered deed of settlement, it is relevant to look into the
circumstances immediately before and after the execution of the deed and
those circumstances would clearly reveal the fact that, the document has been
transferred in the name of the 1st defendant only for the purpose of making
application for obtaining the IOCL outlet dealership. Having obtained the
document and attended the interview, the proceedings were not followed up
and the promises were thrown out by the first defendant since his ultimate
intention was only to take away the property from the plaintiff and his wife.
16. The decision made in the case of Thangachi Nachial and
Another Vs. Ahmed Hussain Maluminar and Others [1956 CJ Madras
High Court 277], it is held that each circumstances by itself may not mean
much, but taking all of them together, they may reveal a fraudulent of
dishonest plan. Here in the present case on hand, the 1st defendant has failed
to prove as to why and for what reason the document was executed in his
favour to prove that his contention that he was the owner of the suit
properties. Moreover, the deposition of P.W.2 would infer that the property
was transferred only for the purpose of getting the IOCL outlet dealership.
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
No prudent person will gift the property of value more than 67 lakhs for love
and affection. On such findings, the Court below rightly held that the
respondent/plaintiff herein is entitled to permanent injunction as prayed for
and passed a decreetal order in favour of the plaintiff in O.S.No.34 of 2015,
which this Court finds no reason to interfere with.
17. Accordingly, the argument advanced by the learned Senior
counsel for the appellant does not find any merit. The points for
determination in this Appeal Suit are answered as against the
appellants/defendants.
18. In the result, we find no illegality in the judgment of the trial
court warranting our interference. Hence, this Appeal suit stands dismissed.
No costs.
[J.N.B.,J.] [R.K.M.,J.]
20.11.2024
Index:Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No.
sts
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To:
The II Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Vellore @Ranipet,
Vellore District.
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
J.NISHA BANU, J.,
AND
R.KALAIMATHI, J.,
sts
Judgment made in
Dated:
20.11.2024
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
