Madras High Court
L.Ayyammal vs E.Muthammal on 24 April, 2025
Author: N. Sathish Kumar
Bench: N. Sathish Kumar
A.S.No.575 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated 24.04.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR
A.S.No.575 of 2025
L.Ayyammal ... Appellant
Versus
1.E.Muthammal
2.L.Parvathy
3.N.Manian
4. D.Sandhamani
5.S.Valliammal
6.R.Vasanthamani ... Respondents
Prayer: Appeal filed under Order 41 Rule 1 read with Section 96 of Code of Civil
Procedure, to set aside the judgment and decree dated 04.11.2024 in O.S.No.396
of 2018 on the file of I Additional District and Sessions Court, Tiruppur.
For Appellant : Mr.J.Antony Jesus
For Respondents : Mr.K.Myilsamy for R3
JUDGMENT
Challenging the decree and judgment of the Trial Court dismissing the suit
for partition, the present suit has been filed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 03:15:30 pm )
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their own
ranking before the Trial Court.
3. The plaintiff is the daughter of the first defendant, 2 to 4 and 6th
defendants are sisters of the plaintiff and the 5th defendant is the brother of the
plaintiff.
4. It is the case of the plaintiff that the property was originally purchased by
the first defendant/plaintiff's father on 03.06.1959 and he was in possession of the
property and constructed 10 houses as well as two shops. At the time of
construction of houses, all the defendants supported the first defendant physically
and emotionally. The fifth defendant though being the son had not helped the first
defendant in putting up the construction. The first defendant had sold more than
50% of the property and settled the debts of the family. Further, in the year 2006,
the 5th defendant took the first defendant to Registrar Office and obtained sale
deed in his name. The sale deed was obtained by fraud making the first defendant
to believe that only he is going to avail loan facility from the bank. Thereafter, the
fifth defendant demanded the tenants to pay the rents to him. Hence, the first
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 03:15:30 pm )
defendant has filed a suit in O.S.No.164 of 2006 on the file of Sub Court, Tiruppur
to annul the document and later, in pursuant to the compromise, it was withdrawn,
wherein, It is agreed between the parties that all of them are equally entitled to
partition. Hence, the plaintiff has filed the suit for partition.
5. The first defendant filed written statement. According to him, believing
the words of the fifth defendant that the document is a mortgage deed, he had
executed the sale deed. Though he has filed a suit to annul the document in
O.S.No.164 of 2006. Immediately, after the summons served on the fifth
defendant, the 5th defendant agreed to settle the property and thereafter, the suit
has been withdrawn. Hence, prayed for decree and judgment.
6. The fifth defendant disputed the entire aspects. According to him, the
plaintiff was married 40 years back and the defendants 2 to 4 also married 35 years
back. The plaintiff and the defendants 2 to 4 and 6 also executed release deed in
his favour and the first defendant had sold the property for a valuable
consideration and the alleged compromise was also disputed. Hence, according to
him, he is the absolute owner of the property. Therefore, prayed for dismissal of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 03:15:30 pm )
the suit.
7. Based on the above pleadings, the Trial Court framed the following
issues for consideration:
1. Whether the suit is barred by limitation?
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of partition as prayed for?
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of declaration of the sale
deed dated 08.06.2006 as null and void?
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction as
prayed for?
5. To what other reliefs the plaintiff is entitled to?
8. On the side of the plaintiff, the plaintiff was examined as PW1 and
marked Exs.A1 to A5. On the side of the defendants, DW1 to DW5 were
examined and marked Exs.B1 to B11.
9. Based on the oral and documentary evidences, the Trial Court dismissed
the suit for partition. Hence, the unsuccessful plaintiff has filed the instant appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 03:15:30 pm )
10. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Trial Court has
not gone into the entire issue and the documentary evidences has not been
properly appreciated. The suit itself is for partition, when the first defendant
himself has admitted that the sale deed is obtained fraudulently by the fifth
defendant, the Trial Court ought not to have granted decree and judgment in his
favour. Hence, seeks for allowing this appeal.
11. Mr.K.Myilsamy, learned counsel took notice for the third respondent
and placed his submissions.
12. On hearing the learned counsel for either side and perusing the materials
placed on record, this Court is inclined to dispose of the appeal at the admission
stage itself.
13. In light of the above submissions, now the points arise for consideration
are as follows:
(i) Whether the sale deed dated 08.06.2006 is obtained fraudulently?
(ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to partition as prayed for?
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 03:15:30 pm )
Points (i) and (ii)
14. The plaint proceeds as if the first defendant is the absolute owner of the
property and the sale made in favour of the fifth defendant is by playing fraud on
by the first defendant. It is not in dispute that the property is the absolute property
of the first defendant. It is relevant to note that the sale deed was executed by the
first defendant as early as 08.06.2006 and though the first defendant filed a suit in
O.S.No.164 of 2006 to annul the sale deed, subsequently, the suit was dismissed
as settled out of Court. Filing of the said suit is not disputed. Therefore, once the
suit already filed in this regard is dismissed as settled out of Court, on the different
cause of action, now to annul the very same sale deed by filing a second suit is
totally barred under law. It is to be noted that the plaintiff has very conveniently
filed the suit. If really the document has been obtained by playing fraud, the proper
person to avoid such sale is only the executant of the document. When the first
defendant has not chosen to prosecute the suit for the reasons best known to him,
it is too late for the plaintiff/daughter to challenge such sale after a period of 12
years. Therefore, once the document has been consciously executed and any
person challenging the document on the ground of fraud, undue influence, the suit
ought to have been filed within a period of 3 years by the executant as
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 03:15:30 pm )
contemplated under Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Having filed a suit and
later the suit was dismissed as settled out of Court, now the plaintiff for the second
time on a different cause of action has filed the subject suit to annul the
document/sale deed, that too after a period of 12 years is certainly barred under
law.
15. Further, on perusal of the entire evidences and materials, there is no
specific pleadings as to the nature of the fraud played on the first defendant.
Therefore, in the absence of any evidences with regard to the alleged fraud, merely
on the basis of allegations of one of the daughter, i.e., plaintiff, the plaintiff is not
entitled for partition.
16. Ex.B1 is also filed to show that the plaintiff and the defendants 2 to 4
and 6 have already executed a release deed in favour of the first and fifth
defendants. Having released their rights under Ex.B1 and the first defendant has
also executed a sale deed in favour of the fifth defendant in the year 2006, thus,
the plaintiff has no right whatsoever to claim any share in the suit property.
Accordingly, these points are answered.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 03:15:30 pm )
N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.
17. In view of the above, I do not find any merits in this appeal and the
judgment and decree dated 04.11.2024 in O.S.No.396 of 2018 on the file of I
Additional District and Sessions Court, Tiruppur stands confirmed. Accordingly,
this appeal stands dismissed. No costs.
24.04.2025
Index : Yes / No
Speaking/non speaking order
dhk
To,
1. The I Additional District and Sessions Judge,
I Additional District and Sessions Court
Tiruppur
2.The Section Officer
VR Section, Madras High Court
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 03:15:30 pm )
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 03:15:30 pm )
