Supreme Court Sets Aside Madras High Court Order, Upholds Dismissal of Partition Suit.


[ Court Doc ]   Civil Appeals >> Civil & Consumer Law   |   Partition Related Issue >> Property & Real Estate  

In a recent judgment of Rajendhiran v/s Muthaiammal Muthayee & Others, the Supreme Court of India has overturned a decision by the High Court of Judicature at Madras, thereby restoring the concurrent judgments of the Trial Court and the Subordinate Court that had dismissed a suit seeking a declaration of a sale deed as null and void, a declaration of ownership, and a permanent injunction. The appeal was filed by the defendants challenging the High Court's order that had allowed the plaintiff's second appeal and decreed the suit.

The crux of the dispute revolved around a property in Tiruchengode, originally belonging to one Avinashi Gounder. The plaintiffs, the wife and adopted son of one of Avinashi Gounder's sons, Arunachalam, claimed ownership based on an alleged oral partition amongst the four sons and a subsequent will executed by Arunachalam in their favor. They challenged a sale deed executed by the daughter of another son, Palaniyappan (the first defendant), in favor of the second defendant.

The plaintiffs' case rested on the premise that the suit property fell to Arunachalam's share in the oral partition and was later bequeathed to them through a will. They also alleged that the second defendant, with whom the second plaintiff ran a partnership, had fraudulently obtained the sale deed despite the second plaintiff having cleared a loan for which the property was offered as security.

 

 

The defendants contested the claim of oral partition and the adoption of the second plaintiff. They asserted that Avinashi Gounder's family had a limited share in the survey number in question, which was partitioned amongst three sons (excluding the deceased Arumugam). They claimed the first defendant inherited a portion of Palaniyappan's share and validly sold a part of it to the second defendant. They also raised the issue of non-joinder of necessary parties, stating that other co-owners were not included in the suit.

The Trial Court, after examining the evidence, dismissed the suit. It found that the plaintiffs failed to prove the will according to legal requirements and did not adequately establish the oral partition. The Trial Court also held the suit was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The First Appellate Court upheld these findings and dismissed the plaintiffs' appeal.

However, the High Court, in the second appeal, focused primarily on the issue of oral partition. Relying on three documents – a mortgage deed, and two sale deeds – which mentioned boundaries, the High Court concluded that an oral partition had indeed taken place. Based solely on this finding, the High Court allowed the second appeal, setting aside the judgments of the lower courts and decreeing the suit in favor of the plaintiffs.

The Supreme Court, hearing the defendants' appeal, found the High Court's reasoning flawed. The apex court pointed out that the three documents relied upon by the High Court pertained to different properties and did not specifically relate to the survey number in question. The Supreme Court noted that the suit property was never recorded in the name of the plaintiffs or Arunachalam. Furthermore, the will, the primary basis of the plaintiffs' claim, was not proven according to law.

The Supreme Court also highlighted a crucial piece of evidence overlooked by the High Court: two pattas (land revenue records) filed by the plaintiffs themselves, which indicated that the survey number in question was jointly held by the first plaintiff and eight others, with no recorded partition. This fact was even admitted by the plaintiffs in their deposition.

The apex court criticized the High Court for failing to consider the oral and documentary evidence comprehensively and for reaching a "perverse finding" on oral partition based on irrelevant documents. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's judgment did not conform to the scope of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which governs second appeals on substantial questions of law, and that it ignored material evidence.

Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the Madras High Court, and restored the judgments of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, thereby dismissing the plaintiffs' suit. The Court, however, did not impose any order as to costs.


Section 68, Indian Evidence Act - 1872  

Indian Evidence Act, 1872  

Section 63, Indian Succession Act - 1925  

Indian Succession Act, 1925