Full Judgment Text
Non-reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.11136 OF 2013
John Kennedy & Another … Petitioners
Versus
Ranjana & Others … Respondents
JUDGMENT
Chelameswar, J.
1. The instant special leave petition is filed by two unsuccessful
petitioners before the High Court of Madras in CRP (PD) No.3342
of 2012 aggrieved by a final order dated 15.11.2012 passed
therein.
JUDGMENT
2. The petitioners herein are defendant nos.2 and 3
respectively in Original Suit No.300 of 2011 on the file of the
Court of District Judge, Coimbatore. The said suit was filed by the
nd
first respondent herein. She is the daughter of 2 respondent
herein. The suit was filed with the prayer as follows:
1
Page 1
“a) for partitioning of the properties more fully described
in the schedule hereunder and allot ½ share to the
plaintiff.
b) directing the defendants to pay plaintiff the cost;
c) granting to the plaintiff such other and further reliefs
as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the
circumstances of the case and render justice.”
Such a prayer is based upon the pleading that the suit scheduled
property originally belonged to one Shri S. Somanathan, the
grandfather of the plaintiff who according to the plaint died
intestate on 16.08.1981. The relevant portion of the plaint reads
as follows:
“The suit properties more fully described hereunder in the
schedule belongs to Late Somanathan vide document
bearing Registration No.1072/1972 dated 20.03.1972. He
died intestate on 16.08.1981. On his death, the properties
st
devolve upon his legal heirs including the 1 defendant.
Subsequently, the properties were partitioned to metes
and bounds between the legal heirs vide Partition Deed
bearing Registration No.2435/1982, dated 05.06.1982 in
st
the Office of the District Registrar, Coimbatore. The 1
JUDGMENT
defendant being one of the son of Late Somanathan the
Schedule hereunder.”
st
3. According to the plaintiff, the 1 petitioner herein is the
“erstwhile power of attorney” of the father of the plaintiff. The
other defendants no.3 to 8 are the “alleged purchasers of a part
st nd
of the suit property from the 1 defendant through the 2
defendant”. It is alleged in the plaint that the plaintiff and her
father constituted a Hindu Undivided Family and the suit property
2
Page 2
st
is ancestral property in the hands of the 1 defendant. The
relevant portion of the plaint reads as follows:
“The suit property is an ancestral property in the hands of
st st
the 1 defendant. The 1 defendant being the Kartha of the
Hindu Undivided Family was looking after the same. He is
having only the right to manage the properties. The
properties mentioned in the schedule were enjoyed by the
st
plaintiff and the 1 defendant jointly. The plaintiff and the
st
1 defendant are the co-owners in the suit property. There
is no partition between the plaintiff and is not having any
right to alienate the same without the consent and
st
concurrence of the plaintiff. The 1 defendant and the
plaintiff are having ½ undivided share each in the suit
property, being the coparceners of the Hindu Undivided
Family.”
4. In the background of the abovementioned pleading, the
plaintiff made a further allegation that -
“Upon enquiry, the plaintiff came to know that the sale of a
part of the suit property to the defendants 3 to 8 are
collusive transactions without any consideration. The price
quoted in the sale deeds are imaginary and very low. The
market value of the property is much more than what is
rd th
mentioned as price in the sale deeds. The 3 to 8
defendants are not bonafide purchasers for good
consideration. The alleged sale transactions are fraudulent
and designed to defeat the right of the plaintiff. The
alleged transactions were neither in good faith nor for
valuable consideration. All the above said sale deeds will
not bind the plaintiff in any manner. Hence the plaintiff is
ignoring the same.”
JUDGMENT
5. Having made such an allegation, the plaintiff never gave any
description or any details of the sale transaction/s entered into
st
between the 1 petitioner and the other alleged purchasers of the
nd
part of the suit scheduled property through the 2 petitioner
3
Page 3
herein. More interestingly no relief is sought in the suit either
st
against the 1 petitioner herein or the other defendants who are
allegedly the vendees of some part of the suit scheduled
property.
6. In the background of such a plaint, the petitioners herein
filed I.A. No.1097 of 2011 praying that the plaint be rejected on
the ground that the suit is a vexatious suit. By an order dated
19.06.2002, the trial court dismissed the said application.
7. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners herein carried the
matter by way of a revision to the High Court unsuccessfully.
Hence, this SLP.
8. It appears from the impugned judgment that the debate
before the High Court was – whether the suit scheduled property
JUDGMENT
is the self acquired property of the father of the plaintiff or the
property ‘belong to the coparcenery’ between the plaintiff and her
father.
9. The High Court on the basis of such a vague pleading in the
plaint, even without a written statement chose to declare as
follows:
st
“Therefore, the property in the hands of 1 defendant
takes the character of ancestral property and after the
4
Page 4
Tamil Nadu Amendment Act, 1989 to the Hindu Succession
Act, 1956, unmarried daughter also became coparceners
and they are entitled to claim a share in the ancestral
property along with son.”
10. Even before this Court, it was argued by the petitioners that
the suit scheduled property is to be treated as self acquired
property of the father of the plaintiff and not ancestral property
and, therefore, the plaint is required to be rejected.
11. We refrain from making any further comment as any
comment at this stage by this Court will have some impact on the
rights and obligations of some parties to the suit or the other.
12. We are of the opinion that the IA No.1097 of 2011 is wholly
misconceived. Whether the suit scheduled property is ancestral
JUDGMENT
property of the plaintiff’s father or self acquired property depends
upon various factors. The law in this regard is well settled.
Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a right of partition in the suit
scheduled property by virtue of the amendment carried to the
Hindu Succession Act by the State of Tamil Nadu in 1989, or
subsequently by the Parliament, are matters to be decided after
the pleadings are completed and evidence adduced. In the
circumstances, though we are of the opinion that I.A. No.1097 of
5
Page 5
2011 is required to be dismissed, the finding recorded by the High
Court that the suit scheduled property is ancestral property of the
father of the plaintiff and, therefore, the plaintiff is entitled for a
share is uncalled for at this stage and we set aside the same
leaving it open for the trial court to examine these questions
during the course of trial uninfluenced by any observation made
by the High Court in the impugned order. The Special Leave
Petition is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.
………….…………………..J.
(J. Chelameswar)
………….…………………..J.
(Pinaki Chandra Ghose)
New Delhi.
November 12, 2014
JUDGMENT
6
Page 6