Legal Battle Over Property Partition: Supreme Court Overturns High Court Ruling

The legal dispute in this case revolves around the ownership and partition of a property that originally belonged to Avinashi Gounder and was subject to an alleged oral partition among his four sons. The plaintiffs claimed that the suit property was allotted to Arunachalam, from whom they derived title, while the defendants contested the existence of such partition.

Case Background:

The case originated in the Munsiff Court, Tiruchengode, where the plaintiffs sought a declaration that the sale deed dated 10.02.2011 executed by the first defendant in favor of the second defendant was null and void. They also sought a permanent injunction against the defendants, arguing that the suit property belonged to them as heirs of Arunachalam.

Read also: https://judgmentlibrary.com/land-ownership-dispute-supreme-courts-landmark-judgment-on-sale-deed-validity/

The plaintiffs claimed that Arunachalam executed a will on 16.07.2003 bequeathing the suit property to them, which they contended was sufficient to establish their ownership. However, the defendants denied the oral partition claim and asserted that the property was divided among the three sons of Avinashi Gounder after the death of the fourth son, Arumugam, who had no heirs.

Trial Court’s Findings:

The Trial Court framed six key issues, including whether the will executed by Arunachalam was valid and whether the plaintiffs were entitled to a declaration of ownership. Upon evaluating the evidence, the court found that:

• The plaintiffs failed to prove the alleged oral partition.
• The will executed by Arunachalam was not proved in accordance with statutory requirements under the Indian Evidence Act and the Indian Succession Act.
• The suit was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.

Based on these findings, the Trial Court dismissed the plaintiffs’ suit on 08.09.2015.

Appeal Before the High Court:

The plaintiffs appealed before the Subordinate Court, Tiruchengodu, which upheld the Trial Court’s decision on 27.11.2020. The High Court, however, overturned the concurrent findings of both lower courts, ruling in favor of the plaintiffs based on three documents: Ex.A-3 (Mortgage Deed dated 13.10.2009), Ex.A-4 (Sale Deed dated 15.07.1981), and Ex.B-3 (Sale Deed dated 02.05.2008). The High Court concluded that these documents established the existence of an oral partition.

Read also: https://judgmentlibrary.com/slum-rehabilitation-and-housing-dispute-supreme-courts-landmark-judgment-on-fair-allocation/

Supreme Court’s Ruling:

Upon appeal, the Supreme Court scrutinized the High Court’s reliance on the three documents. The Court found that:

• The two sale deeds related to different properties, not the survey number in question.
• The suit property was never recorded in the plaintiffs’ or Arunachalam’s name.
• The High Court failed to properly evaluate the documentary and oral evidence presented before the Trial Court and First Appellate Court.

Delivering the judgment, the Supreme Court stated, “The impugned judgment cannot be sustained as it not only does not conform to the scope of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, but also as it was perverse on appreciated evidence, and also ignored material evidence.”

Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s judgment, and reinstated the rulings of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court, thereby dismissing the plaintiffs’ suit.

Read also: https://judgmentlibrary.com/supreme-court-clarifies-witness-rights-and-document-production-in-civil-cases/

Petitioner Name: Rajendhiran.
Respondent Name: Muthaiammal @ Muthayee & Ors..
Judgment By: Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Rajesh Bindal.
Place Of Incident: Tiruchengode.
Judgment Date: 03-01-2024.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: rajendhiran-vs-muthaiammal-@-muthay-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-03-01-2024.pdf