1988 (3) TMI 444 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Genealogy and Family Background
2. Previous Litigation and Family Arrangements
3. Claims and Counterclaims Regarding Property Shares
4. Maintainability of Application for Final Decree
5. Divisibility of the III Schedule House
6. Valuation and Owelty Payment
7. Jurisdiction and Application of the Partition Act
8. Final Decree and Allotment of Property

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Genealogy and Family Background:
The case involves a detailed genealogy of the family, with the sixth defendant being the appellant and the plaintiffs as respondents. The genealogy is crucial to understanding the claims and counterclaims regarding the division of property.

2. Previous Litigation and Family Arrangements:
The foundation for the present appeals was laid by a suit for partition filed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli. An earlier litigation in O.S. No. 50 of 1925 ended in a compromise decree where Palanikumar Pillai and his seven sons divided their joint family properties. After Palanikumar Pillai's death, a family arrangement on 2.1.1926 allowed his second wife Ponnammal to enjoy certain properties for her lifetime, with subsequent division among the sons.

3. Claims and Counterclaims Regarding Property Shares:
The plaintiffs prayed for partition and separate possession of various shares in the properties described in the schedules. They claimed that the appellant had relinquished his interest in the III Schedule house under a partition arrangement dated 26.10.1942. The appellant resisted this claim, leading to a contest between the parties.

4. Maintainability of Application for Final Decree:
The trial Court and appellate Court found that the application for passing a final decree was maintainable, dismissing the appellant's contention that the application should be filed only in the Sub Court, Tirunelveli. The appellant also contended that the plaintiffs had lost their right to apply for a final decree due to the dismissal of an earlier application for default.

5. Divisibility of the III Schedule House:
The trial Court found that the III Schedule house was not divisible and should be allotted to plaintiffs 3 to 7, directing them to pay owelty to the appellant. The appellant contended that there was no finding on the non-divisibility of the house and that the report of the Commissioner was relied upon without giving him an opportunity to contest it.

6. Valuation and Owelty Payment:
The trial Court calculated the owelty at the rate of Rs. 214.28 for 1/7th share as fixed in the family arrangement of 1926. The appellant argued that he was entitled to 1/6th share of the market value of the house. The Court directed the parties to submit their estimates of the market value, with the respondents offering Rs. 20,000 for the appellant's 1/6th share, which was accepted by the Court.

7. Jurisdiction and Application of the Partition Act:
The appellant argued that the direction to pay owelty was akin to a sale of his share, which could only be ordered under the Partition Act. The Court held that the Partition Act did not affect the power of the Court to make an equitable distribution of properties and that the final decree did not contravene the preliminary decree.

8. Final Decree and Allotment of Property:
The final decree divided the land in Schedule I and allotted 52 cents to plaintiffs 3 to 7 and the entirety of the III Schedule house to them. The Court directed the respondents to pay Rs. 20,000 to the appellant for his 1/6th share in the III Schedule house, in addition to Rs. 749.98 already deposited.

Conclusion:
The appeals were dismissed, affirming the trial Court's order and final decree. The Court directed the respondents to pay Rs. 20,000 to the appellant as owelty, ensuring an equitable distribution of the properties. Both parties were ordered to bear their respective costs.