Full Judgment Text
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Civil Appeal Nos.9558-9559 of 2018
(Arising out of Special Leave Petitions (C) Nos.9811-12 of
2017)
Ponnayal @ Lakshmi …… APPELLANT (S)
Versus
Karuppannan (Dead)
Thr. L.R. Sengoda Gounder & Anr. ……..RESPONDENT (S)
J U D G M E N T
L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.
Leave granted.
1. The Appellant and her mother filed a Civil Suit for
Partition and separate possession which was dismissed
by the Subordinate Judge, Sankagiri. The High Court
affirmed the judgment and decree of trial court. The
Appellant filed a Review Application which was rejected
by the High Court. Aggrieved by the judgment of the
High Court in the first Appeal and the Review Application,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
CHARANJEET KAUR
Date: 2018.12.15
09:58:03 IST
Reason:
the Appellant has approached this Court.
1
th
2. On 15 November, 2016, a request was made by the
Appellant to discharge A. Lakshminarayanan, the learned
Advocate-on-Record who filed the above Appeals. The
said Advocate-on-Record was discharged and the matter
was listed for further hearing. After several
th
adjournments, notice was issued on 28 March, 2017
after condoning the delay of 2088 days in filing the
Special Leave Petition against the judgment in first
Appeal and 1405 days in filing the Special Leave Petition
from the judgment in Review Application. As the
Appellant in- person was conversant only in Tamil
language, we requested Mrs. V. Mohna, Ld. Senior
Advocate to appear for the Appellant in-person. Later,
Mrs. V. Mohna, Ld. Senior Advocate informed us that the
Appellant in-person is not willing to take her assistance.
The Appellant in-person who was present in the Court on
th
4 September, 2018 requested that she does not want
Mrs. V. Mohna to appear for her. We discharged Mrs. V.
Mohna, Ld. Senior Counsel from the case. The Appellant
in-person insisted on making submissions in Tamil
language and she requested for a translator. We
2
declined the request of the Appellant in-person who had
not utilized the opportunity of having the services of a
Senior Advocate who is well-versed with Tamil language.
We gave opportunity to the parties to submit their
th
written submissions, if any, within one week from 4
September, 2018 and reserved the matter for judgment.
3. Appavu Gounder had two sons namely Athappa
Gounder and Karuppannan Gounder. Athappa Gounder
was married to Kandayi (Plaintiff No.2). The Appellant
(Plaintiff No.1) is the daughter of Athappa Gounder and
Kandayi. Karuppannan is Defendant No.1 in the suit and
his son Sengoda Gounder is Defendant No.2. Defendant
No.3 Komarasamy Gounder is the purchaser of a part of
‘A’ schedule property. As per the plaint, there was a
nd
registered Partition Deed on 22 April, 1948 between the
branches of Appavu Gounder and Pavayee and the plaint
‘A’ schedule properties fell to the share of Appavu
Gounder and his two sons. The Appellant along with her
mother claimed a share in the ‘A’ schedule properties.
4. Hereinafter, the parties will be referred to as arrayed
in the plaint in O.S. No.130 of 1987 before the
3
Subordinate Judge, Sankagiri. The case of the Plaintiff
No.1 is that she was the only surviving heir of Athappa
Gounder who during his lifetime suffered from mental
illness and was under the control of his father Appavu
Gounder. Athappa Gounder was living with his brother
Karuppannan after the death of his father. Due to the
constant harassment of her husband, Plaintiff No.2 had
no other alternative except to shift to her matrimonial
home at Veppamarathupatti, Edappady. It was stated in
the plaint that Defendant No.1, taking advantage of the
lunacy of Athappa Gounder, created a Sale Deed dated
th
15 September, 1949 by which his properties were
transferred to Defendant No.1. The Settlement Deed
th
dated 6 December, 1958 executed by Appavu Gounder
in favour of Defendant No.2- Sengoda Gounder was
seriously disputed by the Plaintiffs. The sale of a portion
of the ‘A’ schedule property to Defendant No.3 by
th
registered Sale Deed dated 9 November, 1964 was
illegal and void according to the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs
further contended that a rig along with a support lorry
which are shown as ‘B’ schedule property in the plaint
4
were purchased by Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 from the
income that was derived from ‘A’ schedule property. As
the Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 were not agreeing for a
partition as requested by the Plaintiffs, there was no
other alternative except to file a suit.
5. Defendant No.1 filed a written statement in which it
nd
was stated that the registered Partition Deed dated 22
th
April, 1948, the registered Sale Deed dated 15
September, 1949 and the registered Settlement Deed
th
dated 6 December, 1958 are valid. The Defendant No.1
stated that there was severance of the joint family status
more than 40 years ago and the Plaintiffs did not have
any right to seek a fresh partition. The Defendant No.1
further stated that the suit was barred by limitation and
not maintainable. The Defendant No.1 also raised a
defense of adverse possession.
6. The trial court framed the following issues for
consideration:
“ 1. The partition deed came into existence on
22.04.1948 binds the plaintiffs?
2. Whether the plaintiff has got right to object the
settlement deed dated 6.12.1958?
5
3. Whether the plaintiffs’ have got right to object
rd
the sale deed executed by 3 defendants husband
st
in favour of 1 Defendant’s name on 15.9.1949?
4. Whether the suit is barred by limitations?
5. Regarding the ‘A’ Schedule property whether
1,2 defendants have got adverse possessions?
6. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to partition,
separate possession, mense profits?
7. What other Reliefs? ”
7. After a detailed consideration of the evidence on-
record and the submissions that were made by both the
sides, the trial court dismissed the suit. The trial court
observed that the Plaintiffs are bound by the Partition
nd
Deed dated 22 April, 1948, that they have no right to
th
question the Sale Deed dated 15 September, 1949
executed by the husband of Plaintiff No.2 in favour of
th
Defendant No.1 and the Settlement Deed dated 6
December, 1958 executed by Appavu Gounder in favour
of Defendant No.2. The trial court further decided that
the suit was barred by limitation and Defendant Nos. 1
and 2 acquired title over the schedule properties in the
Plaint by way of adverse possession.
6
8. The High Court framed the following issues for
consideration:
“ i. The plaintiffs are bound by the partition deed
dated 22.4.1948;
ii. The plaintiffs have no right to question the
settlement deed dated 6.12.1958 executed by the
Appavu Gounder in favour of the second
defendant;
iii. The plaintiffs have no right to question the sale
deed dated 15.9.1949 executed by the husband of
the second plaintiff in favour of the first
defendant;
iv. The suit barred by limitation;
v. The defendants 1 and 2 preferred the title by
adverse possession; and
vi. The plaintiffs are not entitled to the reliefs as
prayed for by them. ”
9. The High Court rejected the contention of the Plaintiffs
nd
that they are not bound by the Partition Deed dated 22
April, 1948. The High Court found that properties
allotted to Appavu Gounder and his two sons were
described in the ‘B’ schedule to the Partition Deed date
nd
22 April, 1948 which was marked as exhibit-A1 in the
suit. The aforesaid ‘B’ schedule properties were
described as ‘A’ schedule properties in the suit filed by
7
the Plaintiffs. The High Court proceeded to hold that
there was no evidence that was adduced by the Plaintiffs
to support the contention that the Partition Deed dated
nd
22 April, 1948 was not binding on them. Appavu
Gounder settled his share of the properties allotted to
nd
him in the Partition Deed dated 22 April, 1948 in favour
of his Grandson i.e. Defendant No.2 by a Settlement
th
Deed dated 6 December, 1958. According to the High
Court, the Plaintiffs did not have any right to challenge
the said Settlement Deed.
10. The contention of the Plaintiffs that the Sale
th
Deed executed by Athappa Gounder on 15 September,
1949 was not binding on them was also not accepted by
the High Court. While dealing with this point, the High
Court referred to a Compromise Decree that was passed
in O.S. No.18 of 1953 which was filed by the Plaintiffs
against Athappa Gounder, Karuppannan Gounder and
Appavu Gounder before the Sub-Judge, Salem. In O.S.
No.18 of 1953 the Plaintiffs, claimed maintenance,
st
recovery of arrears of maintenance from 1 July, 1949
upto the date of the suit, recovery of jewellery and
8
th
cancellation of the Sale Deed dated 15 September,
1949 executed by Athappa Gounder in favour of
Defendant No.1 in O.S. No.130 of 1987. The High Court
took notice of the averments made in O.S. No.18 of 1953
by the Plaintiffs to the effect that Athappa ill-treated his
wife and daughter i.e. the Plaintiffs-herein and forced
them out of the house and refused to maintain them. It
was the case of the Plaintiffs in O.S. No.18 of 1953 that
th
the Sale Deed dated 15 September, 1949 was brought
into existence only for the purpose of defeating their
claim over the property. The terms of compromise were
to the effect that the Defendants in O.S. No.18 of 1953
shall convey the entire properties specified in the
schedule therein in favour of Plaintiff No.2 on deposit of
Rs.6,000/- within a period of six months. In the event of
registration of the said Sale Deed, Plaintiff No.2 would
not have any right to claim maintenance against the
Defendants-therein. In the event of Plaintiff No.2 not
depositing the amount of Rs.6,000/- within the stipulated
time, she would forfeit maintenance due to her and
Plaintiff No.1. Plaintiffs shall be entitled only to future
9
maintenance at the rate of Rs.10/- for Plaintiff No.2 and
Rs.5/- for Plaintiff No.1 until her marriage and Rs.500/- for
the marriage expenses of Plaintiff No.1. There is no
dispute that Plaintiff No.2 did not deposit Rs.6,000/- as
per the terms of the compromise within the stipulated
time. On the basis of the above discussion, the High
Court concluded that the Plaintiffs lost their right to
th
challenge the Sale Deed dated 15 September, 1949.
The High Court, further, held that the said Sale Deed
which was challenged in the year 1953 by filing the O.S.
No. 18 of 1953 cannot be the subject matter of another
challenge after a lapse of over 30 years. The High Court,
thus, approved the judgment of the trial court that the
suit is barred by limitation. The contention of the
Plaintiffs that the Defendants took advantage of the
mental illness of Athappa Gounder and manipulated the
documents in their favour was also not accepted by the
High Court. The High Court referred to the suit filed by
the Plaintiffs in O.S. No.18 of 1953 in which they did not
even whisper about the mental illness of Athappa
Gounder. The conclusion of the trial court regarding
10
adverse possession in favour of the Defendants was also
upheld by the High Court in view of the peculiar facts of
the case.
11. We have perused the written submissions
filed by the Appellant in-person. The Appellant has relied
th
upon the Partition Deed dated 6 December, 1937 and
th
the Deed of Settlement dated 6 August 1942.
According to the Appellant, the Deed of Partition dated
th
6 December, 1937 was entered into between her
grandfather late Shri Appavu Gounder and his two sons
late Shri Karunappanan Gounder (Defendant No.1) and
late Shri Athappa Gounder. The Deed of Settlement
th
dated 6 August 1942 executed by her father Athappa
Gounder in favour of her grandfather Appavu Gounder
showed the inability of Athappa Gounder to cultivate his
land. According to the said Settlement Deed dated
6.8.1942, the property should be handed over to the
legal heirs of Athappa Gounder. As the said two
documents were neither part of the pleadings in the Suit
nor was an issue framed regarding the said documents,
we are afraid that we cannot adjudicate on the issues
11
pertaining to the said documents. Civil Suits are decided
on the basis of pleadings and the issues framed and the
parties to the Suit cannot be permitted to travel beyond
1
the pleadings.
12. The dispute raised by the Appellant pertains to
her right to partition of ancestral properties that fell to
the share of her father late Athappa Gounder pursuant to
nd
the registered Partition Deed dated 22 April 1948. The
Plaintiffs prayed for division of the suit properties on the
nd
basis of the registered Partition Deed dated 22 April
1948. The Appellant cannot be permitted to contend
that the Plaintiffs are not bound by the Partition Deed
nd
dated 22 April 1948 when the foundation for the claim
of the Plaintiffs is the said Partition Deed.
th
13. The registered Sale Deed dated 15 September
1949 executed by Athappa Gounder in favour of
Defendant No.1 is challenged on the ground that there
was no necessity for Athappa Gounder to take loans from
third parties. The Appellant further stated in the written
submissions that the Compromise Decree in O.S. No. 18
1 (1987) 2 SCC 555 – Ram Swarup Gupta v. Bishun Narain Inter College and AIR
1956 SC 231- J.K. Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. v. Mazdoor Union
12
of 1953 cannot preclude her from challenging the Sale
th
Deed dated 15 September 1949. There is no dispute
th
that the Sale Deed dated 15 September 1949 was
challenged in O.S. No. 18 of 1953. The Plaintiff No.2 did
not comply with the condition of the Compromise Decree
regarding the deposit of Rs.6000/- within the stipulated
time whereafter she was entitled for transfer of property
in her favour. The High Court held that the Appellant has
th
lost her right to question the Sale Deed dated 15
September 1949 again, that too, after an inordinate
delay. As such, the Suit filed in 1987 was barred by
limitation. The High Court rejected the submissions of
the Appellant that Athappa Gounder was of unsound
mind and the Defendant No.1 took advantage and
th
manipulated the Sale Deed dated. 15 September 1949.
We are in agreement with the findings of the High Court.
14. What remains to be seen is whether the
th
Settlement Deed dated 6 December 1958 executed by
Appavu Gounder in favour of Defendant No.2 is valid and
binding on the Appellants. There is no evidence adduced
13
by the Appellant to prove the contrary. The High Court is
right in its conclusion that Appavu Gounder had a right to
settle the property that fell to his share in the Partition
nd
Deed dated 22 April 1948 in favour of his grandson.
15. For the aforementioned reasons, we see no
reason to interfere with the judgments of the High Court.
Accordingly, the Appeals are dismissed.
……………………..……..J.
[S.A. BOBDE]
…………..………………..J.
[L. NAGESWARA RAO]
NEW DELHI,
September 17, 2018
14