Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
KARUMANDA GOUNDER
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
MUTHUSWAMY GOUNDER & OTHERS
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 10/01/1996
BENCH:
PUNCHHI, M.M.
BENCH:
PUNCHHI, M.M.
MANOHAR SUJATA V. (J)
CITATION:
1996 AIR 1002 1996 SCC (1) 720
JT 1996 (1) 205 1996 SCALE (1)235
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
The appellant herein, Karumanda Gounder, was one of the
defendants in the suit. He was a brother to Komaraswamy
Gounder. At one point of time they had joint properties with
their father. A partition took place between them which was
put to some doubts. Out of the properties allotted to
Komaraswamy Gounder, a parcel of land was gifted by him to
M.K. Komaraswamy Gounder. When Muthuswamy Gounder the
plaintiff-respondent wanted to purchase that property, he
persuaded the donor and the done to sell the property to him
in unison. That having occasioned, resistance was faced by
the plaintiff-respondent from the present appellant on the
ostensible plea that the properties were joint. The
plaintiff-respondent concededly after sale had not been put
to possession of the property. This led to the suit for
possession by the plaintiff-respondent.
Amongst other pleas, the star plea of the appellant was
that his brother Komaraswamy Gounder was a lunatic; hence,
he was incapable of selling or gifting the property. Further
there had been no partition and the question of the sold
property having fallen to the share of Komaraswamy Gounder
did not arise. When the parties went to issue before the
trial court, the plaintiff-respondent failed as the court
took the view that Komaraswamy Gounder was mildly a lunatic;
the properties were joint and that the alleged interest in
the properties by the appellant, was justified. The High
Court, on appeal, however, reversed the findings recording
that Komaraswamy Gounder was not a lunatic; the properties
amongst brothers stood partitioned as conceded to by the
appellant, and that the property in dispute had fallen to
the share of Komaraswamy Gounder. On that basis, the right
of the appellant to question the gift and the sale deed was
negatived inasmuch as on date he had no right over the
property. Thus, the High Court put the appellant to the
position of an interloper; not even a proper party to the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
suit, what to talk of a necessary party. It is to upset
these findings that the appellant is before us, in appeal.
We have heard Mr. A.T.M. Sampath, learned counsel
appearing for the appellant. He has taken us through the
lengthy judgments prepared by the subordinate court as also
that of the High Court. It is prominently noticeable that no
effort ever had been made by the appellant to have his
brother Komaraswamy Gounder declared as a lunatic from the
District Court under the Lunacy Act. Even on the findings
recorded by the subordinate Court, there is hardly any
substance to entertain the view that he was a lunatic. A
person has to be adjudged a lunatic whereafter certain
consequences may follow. There is no such thing as a mild
lunatic’. A person may be of a weak intellect; incapable of
managing his affairs, but that per se, would not make him a
lunatic. Once partition stands conceded and the property in
dispute fallen to the share of Komaraswamy Gounder and the
plea of his being a lunatic rejected, the appellant has no
stake left to pursue the appeal. It is far-fetched to assume
that Komaraswamy Gounder would some day die intestate and
issueless on which the appellant might have a claim to
succeed to his estate. Even this plea is presumptuous,
because the property in dispute has already been gifted and
then sold to the plaintiff-respondent. The claim of the
plaintiff-respondent for possession,thus, was legitimate in
the facts and circumstances. The questions raised herein by
Mr. Sampath, learned counsel, to upset the view of the High
Court are essentially those of fact. It would be difficult
for us to upset those orders of the High Court in this
jurisdiction.
The appeal accordingly fails and is hereby dismissed.
No costs.