2008 (5) TMI 635 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the plaintiffs prove that the suit schedule properties are self acquired properties of the deceased Srinivas? Whether the defendants prove that the suit schedule properties are the ancestral properties? Does defendant No.1 prove plaintiffs executing valid powers of attorney on 15.7.1983; 20.12.1983 and 5.8.1985? Do the defendants 1 and 2 prove due execution of release deed dated 5.8.1983 by the plaintiffs for valid and proper consideration. Do the defendants 1 and 2 prove partition deed dated 5.8.1983 is valid one? Whether the plaintiffs and defendants 3 to 8 prove that the defendants 1 and 2 obtained partition deed dated 5.8.1983 by playing fraud? Whether the plaintiffs are estopped from filing this suit due to decree in O.S. 2459/1982? Whether the suit is barred by limitation? Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? Whether the valuation made is insufficient? Do the plaintiffs prove their right for partition and possession of 1/10 share to each? To what shares the defendants are entitled? To what reliefs the parties are entited?

Issues Involved:
1. Nature of the suit properties (self-acquired vs. ancestral).
2. Validity of powers of attorney and partition deed.
3. Allegations of fraud and misrepresentation.
4. Estoppel and maintainability of the suit.
5. Limitation period for filing the suit.
6. Adequacy of consideration in the deed of partition.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Nature of the Suit Properties:
The plaintiffs contended that the suit properties were self-acquired by K. Sreenivasulu, while the defendants argued they were ancestral properties. The trial court found that the properties were ancestral, not self-acquired. The High Court upheld this finding, noting that the plaintiffs had admitted in earlier proceedings that the properties were joint family properties.

2. Validity of Powers of Attorney and Partition Deed:
The plaintiffs alleged that the powers of attorney and the partition deed were obtained through fraud and misrepresentation. The trial court found that the powers of attorney and the partition deed were executed voluntarily. The High Court upheld this, noting that the plaintiffs had not sought to cancel the partition deed, which was necessary for their suit to be maintainable.

3. Allegations of Fraud and Misrepresentation:
The plaintiffs claimed that their signatures were obtained fraudulently on various documents. The trial court and the High Court both found that the plaintiffs failed to provide specific particulars of the alleged fraud, as required by law. The High Court emphasized that the plaintiffs' general allegations were insufficient to prove fraud or misrepresentation.

4. Estoppel and Maintainability of the Suit:
The High Court held that the plaintiffs were estopped from challenging the partition deed because they had acted upon it by executing lease deeds and receiving rental income. The court also noted that the plaintiffs had not sought a declaration that the partition deed was void, which was necessary for the suit to be maintainable.

5. Limitation Period for Filing the Suit:
The trial court found that the suit was barred by limitation, as the plaintiffs had not sought to cancel the partition deed. The High Court upheld this finding, noting that the plaintiffs were aware of the partition deed and had acted upon it, making their claim time-barred.

6. Adequacy of Consideration in the Deed of Partition:
The plaintiffs argued that the partition deed was void for lack of adequate consideration. The High Court held that consideration in the form of love and affection was sufficient under Section 25 of the Indian Contract Act. The court also noted that the plaintiffs had not raised this issue in their pleadings or during the trial.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the findings of the trial court and the High Court, dismissing the appeal. The court emphasized that the plaintiffs failed to provide specific particulars of fraud, were estopped from challenging the partition deed due to their actions, and that the suit was barred by limitation. The court also held that the consideration of love and affection was sufficient to validate the partition deed.

← Previous Next →