Madras HC Upholds Rejection Of Buyer’s 3-Cent Claim, As Sale Deed Failed To Establish Rights In Specific Portion Of Property Settled On Children

The suit concerned 15 cents originally purchased by Haridoss, who settled the property on his wife, Selvarani, and later jointly settled it on their three children under Ex.A3.

The plaintiff claimed 8½ cents through Ex.A4, relying on the interests of two beneficiaries; the appellant claimed under Ex.B2, a sale deed said to have been executed by beneficiaries under Ex.A3.

Other defendants also asserted interests in parts of the property.

The trial court dismissed the suit, finding the parties’ transactions invalid under restrictions in Ex.A3.

The first appellate court dismissed both the plaintiff’s appeal and the appellant’s cross-appeal.

The appellant then brought this second appeal.

Section 10 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, generally invalidates a condition absolutely restraining a transferee from transferring or disposing of an interest in property; Section 11 provides that, where an interest is created absolutely, a direction restricting how it is to be enjoyed is ordinarily ineffective, subject to the section’s qualification.

Omission to frame a separate issue does not, by itself, vitiate an adjudication where the parties knew of the controversy, had an adequate opportunity to lead evidence, and suffered no prejudice; a finding on a document’s validity must nevertheless rest on the pleadings, issues and evidence.

A conveyance of an unpartitioned property does not automatically establish exclusive title to a specified portion, and adverse possession requires legally sufficient proof of its necessary elements.

The Court considered the appellant’s reliance on Sections 10 and 11 and examined the recitals in the earlier settlement deed, but held that the beneficiaries’ rights and the validity of the later conveyances had to be assessed by reference to Ex.A3’s operative terms and the applicable law.

It found that the appellant had not established that Ex.B2 conveyed an enforceable interest in the particular portion claimed or proved exclusive title to that portion; possession or construction alone did not establish adverse possession.

The evidence concerning Haridoss’s retained possession and purported cancellation of the settlement, as well as the continued tax and electricity records in his name, did not independently determine title.

The Court found no sufficient ground to disturb the concurrent findings, and the authority cited by the appellant did not remove the need to construe the settlement deed and establish the interest conveyed.

It held that the omission to frame a separate issue did not, by itself, require reversal, and found no basis to interfere with the first appellate court’s decree.

The second appeal was dismissed without costs, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.