GOVINDAMMAL Vs. R PERUMAL CHETTIAR
LAWS(SC)-2006-10-4
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: MADRAS)
Decided on October 19,2006

GOVINDAMMAL Appellant
VERSUS
R.PERUMAL CHETTIAR Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

HARDIT SINGH AND ORS. V. GURMUKH SINGH AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]
T.P.R. PALANIA PILLAI AND ORS. V. AMJATH IBRAHIM ROWTHER AND ANR. [REFERRED TO]
VIDYA DEVI ALIAS VIDYA VATI VS. PREM PRAKASH [REFERRED TO]
MOHAMMAD ALI VS. JAGADISH KAKITA [REFERRED TO]
NIRMAL CHANDRA DAS VS. MOHITOSH DAS [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

BHAGWAN DEVI VS. PREMWATI [LAWS(DLH)-2007-7-159] [REFERRED TO]
BUJINGAN @ GANDHI VS. PADMA @ PADRAMMAL [LAWS(MAD)-2018-3-703] [REFERRED TO]
MAKHANBALA CHAKRABORTY VS. PRANAB KANTI BASU [LAWS(TRIP)-2014-9-19] [REFERRED TO]
PONNAMBALAM VS. PITCHAI [LAWS(MAD)-2008-3-308] [REFERRED TO]
SUKHMAN VS. SUBASO AND ORS. [LAWS(CHH)-2019-10-104] [REFERRED TO]
P T MUNICHIKKANNA REDDY VS. REVAMMA [LAWS(SC)-2007-4-116] [REFERRED TO]
BHARATHI T.K. AND ORS. VS. JANAKI AMMA AND ORS. [LAWS(KER)-2020-6-278] [REFERRED TO]
PARMESHARI BAI VS. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND [LAWS(UTN)-2019-8-149] [REFERRED TO]
IMARTI BAI & OTHERS VS. PREM BAI & OTHERS [LAWS(MPH)-2016-5-149] [REFERRED]
KALLIANI VS. SAROJINI [LAWS(KER)-2011-2-174] [REFERRED TO]
BINAPANI PAUL VS. PRATIMA GHOSH [LAWS(SC)-2007-4-122] [REFERRED TO]
DHANRAJ & OTHERS VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2015-4-364] [REFERRED]
RUKKAMMAL VS. MOTTAIYAMMAL ALIAS GENGIAMMAL [LAWS(MAD)-2011-2-526] [REFERRED TO]
VOL : 3; SUNNI CENTRAL BOARD OF WAQFS AND ORS VS. GOPAL SINGH VISHARAD AND ORS [LAWS(ALL)-2010-9-627] [REFERRED]
RAMANBHAI SHAMALBHAI PATEL VS. RAVJIBHAI MOTIBHAI PATEL [LAWS(GJH)-2014-6-145] [REFERRED TO]
VIRENDER RANA ALIAS VARINDER SINGH VS. KISHAN DAYAL [LAWS(HPH)-2019-9-173] [REFERRED TO]
SINGARAM CHETTIAR VS. JANAKI [LAWS(MAD)-2008-4-348] [REFERRED TO]
RAJALAKSHMI VS. S MURUGESAN [LAWS(MAD)-2008-1-286] [REFERRED TO]
C.RAMAIAH VS. A.KOTHAI ATCHI [LAWS(MAD)-2019-11-193] [REFERRED TO]
MANOHAR LAL VS. THE BOARD OF REVENUE [LAWS(RAJ)-2014-11-46] [REFERRED TO]
NAYAN BHARTI VS. S S SRIVASTAVA [LAWS(DLH)-2012-4-375] [REFERRED TO]
ABHIA @ ABHI RAM AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF H.P. AND ANOTHER. [LAWS(HPH)-2011-7-275] [REFERRED TO]
RATNABAI VS. RAJU BAI [LAWS(APH)-2008-9-81] [REFERRED TO]
SIDDAMURTHY JAYARAMI REDDY VS. GODI JAYA RAMI REDDY [LAWS(SC)-2011-4-43] [REFERRED TO]
RAM ABHILAKH & OTHERS VS. UDIT NARAIN & OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2016-7-267] [REFERRED]
LALLAN SINGH VS. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2017-2-329] [REFERRED TO]
RAFIQBHAI HABIBBHAI QURESHI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2015-3-426] [REFERRED]
TULAN RAM JANGU AND ANOTHER VS. BALDEV RAM SUKHNATH RAM AND OTHERS [LAWS(CHH)-2016-9-73] [REFERRED TO]
JAYA VS. KRISHNAN [LAWS(MAD)-2012-7-597] [REFERRED]
RAM RATTAN VS. SHANTI DEVI [LAWS(HPH)-2023-9-58] [REFERRED TO]
GIAN CHAND VS. OM PARKASH [LAWS(HPH)-2016-4-10] [REFERRED TO]
LAXMAN RAM VS. THANMAL [LAWS(RAJ)-2016-5-98] [REFERRED TO]
LUNJA S/O JUDUM KUMHAR VS. BUGAD D/O LATE BHIKHU [LAWS(CHH)-2019-1-173] [REFERRED TO]
MANGLA URAON VS. HAZARI URAON [LAWS(CHH)-2020-11-100] [REFERRED TO]
MANOJ SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(HPH)-2015-5-90] [REFERRED TO]
LATA CHAUHAN VS. L S BISHT [LAWS(DLH)-2010-7-423] [REFERRED TO]
HUKAM SINGH AND ORS. VS. RAJDHANI LAND AND FINANCE AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2015-11-182] [REFERRED TO]
NAVANEETHAM VS. SHANMUGAVADIVELU [LAWS(MAD)-2009-11-219] [REFERRED TO]
K INDIRANI VS. K MANJULA [LAWS(MAD)-2011-7-184] [REFERRED]
LAXMAN JAGOBAJI RAJURKAR VS. BHAGWAN BARBA RAJURKAR [LAWS(BOM)-2009-2-101] [REFERRED TO]
LYDIA AGNES RODRIGUES VS. JOSEPH ANTHONY DCUNHA [LAWS(BOM)-2019-5-13] [REFERRED TO]
JAI KISHAN AND ORS. VS. SARDARI LAL AND ORS. [LAWS(HPH)-2015-5-123] [REFERRED TO]
SUSEELA AMMAL VS. M A KANNIAH REDDIAR [LAWS(MAD)-2018-2-271] [REFERRED TO]
SHRI. PUNJA RAMA BODKE VS. SHRI. SHIVAJI VITOBA BODKE AND ORS [LAWS(BOM)-2016-12-58] [REFERRED TO]
LILAVATI NARAYAN AROLKAR SINCE DECEASED, THR. L.RS. WIFE OF LATE NARAYAN SADASHIV AROLKAR AND ORS. VS. SMT. GOHUKE ALIAS BHANUMATI NAGESH, HOUSEWIFE AND HER HUSBAND AND ORS. [LAWS(BOM)-2010-12-150] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

A. K. Mathur, J. - (1.)These appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 30.12.1998 passed by learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court in Second Appeal No.2253 of 1986 and Second Appeal Nos.145 and 146 of 1988.
(2.)Brief facts giving rise to the present appeals are that the plaintiff filed a suit being O.S.No.409 of 1981 for partition and separate possession and also claimed for rendition of accounts. The plaintiff is the second wife of Raju Naidu. Raju Naidu married Rajakanthammal as his first wife and she died in or about 1946 leaving behind the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 as their sons and one daughter by name Saraswathi. After the death of his wife, Raju Naidu married second time to the plaintiff as the second wife. There was no issue from the second wife. Raju Naidu died intestate in 1954 and on his death the plaintiff and defendant Nos. 1 and 2 were the legal heirs to inherit the properties of Raju Naidu. B schedule properties are the separate and self acquired properties of Raju Naidu. It is alleged that the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 and 2 lived amicably for sometime. Afterwards, the plaintiff started living separately and defendant Nos.1 and 2 were giving her share of income from the properties. She demanded partition of the properties. It was promised by both the sons of Raju Naidu and step sons of the plaintiff but without any result. One year before filing of the present suit, defendant Nos.1 and 2 started acting against the interest of the plaintiff and they stopped giving the income to the plaintiff. Then they alienated item Nos. 3 to 8 of the scheduled properties to defendant No.3 and further to defendant No.4 the entire B and C schedule properties under the pretext of the decree in O.S.No.101 of 1967 and O.S.No.247 of 1970 against defendant Nos.1 and 2. The plaintiff was not a party to these two suits and therefore that decree was not binding on her. It is alleged that a notice was sent for the first time for partition of the properties sometime in 1979 which was replied by the defendants. It is alleged that a reply was sent by the defendant No.1 to the plaintiff wherein it was stated that the allegations are false and item No.2 has been purchased recently by the defendant No.1 out of the sale proceeds got by him by selling item Nos.3 to 8 in favour of defendant No.3. Item No.2 also belonged to the joint family. It was also alleged that at the time of marriage, Raju Naidu had already executed a registered settlement deed dated 17.4.1947 and in that 38 cents were given to the plaintiff and the plaintiff remained in peaceful possession of the C schedule properties. Thereafter, when the suit was filed the defendant No.1 filed a written statement and in that it was alleged that the plaintiff does not have any share in the property and C schedule property was already settled in her favour. A panchayat was also convened and arrangement was made that C scheduled property would remain with her and she would not claim any share in the property. It is also alleged that defendant No.1 maintained the defendant No.2 and their sister and gave her in marriage. After the death of her husband, she and her minor son are still maintained. It is also alleged that sale deed in favour of defendant No.3 was executed by defendant No.1 to meet the debts to the extent of Rs.40,000 by way of promissory notes and simple mortgages. As such, the suit filed by the plaintiff was barred by law. Defendant No. 2 also contested the suit and even challenged the marriage of the plaintiff with Raju Naidu. It is alleged that after the death of Raju Naidu only two sons became the sole owners by way of survivorship. It is alleged that he has sold undivided half of the properties for valid consideration. Defendant No.3 was a purchaser and he contested the suit and submitted that the suit was not maintainable without the prayer for cancellation of the two sale deeds and he also took the plea of limitation. Defendant No.4 being another purchaser of the property, took the plea that the plaintiff only lived with the deceased Raju Naidu for few months and she left on her own and went to her parents house. It was also alleged that his son Mahendran has purchased Door No.8-A and 8-B in Kutchery Road for a valid consideration of Rs.26,000/- from defendant No.2. It is also alleged that he has also filed a suit being OS No.416 of 1981 for allotment of share.
(3.)So far as A schedule properties are concerned, only partial relief has been given to plaintiff with regard to A schedule properties. We are primarily concerned with B scheduled properties. The trial Court initially framed 10 issues and 7 additional issues were framed in OS 409 of 1981 and 11 issues were framed with regard to OS 416 of 1981. Both the suits were tried together as there was common evidence in both the suits. Large number of documents were filed by both the sides. The trial Court after hearing the parties, dismissed OS No.409 of 1981 and passed a preliminary decree for partition and separate possession of plaintiffs half share in the suit A schedule property in OS No.416 of 1981. Aggrieved against this order defendant No.1 preferred an appeal being AS No.55 of 1984 and the plaintiff also preferred an appeal being AS No.244 of 1984 on the file of the District Judge. The appeal of the plaintiff with regard to OS No.409 of 1981 was allowed and the judgment and decree was set aside and a preliminary decree was passed for partition and separate possession of plaintiffs 1/3rd share in the properties mentioned in B schedule and further directed defendant Nos. 1 to 3 to render accounts in respect of items 3 to 8 of plaint B schedule properties and directed defendant Nos. 1 and 2 to render accounts in respect of the income from items 1 and 2 of the plaint B schedule properties from the date of the suit and further directed Defendant No.4 to render accounts in respect of the income from the portion of item 1 of B schedule property from the date of purchase. Defendant No.1s appeal being AS No.55 of 1984 was also allowed and the judgment and decree in OS 416 of 1981 was modified to the effect that the plaintiff was entitled to the share of Thambaiyan the 2nd defendant in the plaint A schedule property and that the suit for partition was dismissed in view of the suit for general partition in OS No.409 of 1981was decreed. Aggrieved against these two orders, three second appeals were preferred before the High Court. In Second Appeal No.2253 of 1986 the following substantial questions of law was framed.
"Whether the plaintiffs claim was not barred by limitation by exclusion and ouster and defendants 1 and 2 in the suit had not acquired title to the suit properties by adverse possession -

In Second Appeal Nos. 145 and 146 of 1988, the following substantial questions of law were framed :

" (1) Whether the Lower Appellate Court is right in negativing the claim of the defendants that they had acquired title by adverse possession

(2) Whether the Lower Appellate Court was right in overlooking that the plaintiff had been excluded even before the coming into force of Act 30 of 1956 and had thereby lost her right by exclusion and ouster

(3) Whether the Lower Appellate Court was right in omitting to note the suit instituted 12 years after the issue of notice under Ex.B 3 dated 2.11.1955 admitting ouster and dispossession is barred by limitation and the relief of partition would not be available -



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.