9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (6) TMI 1140 - SC - Indian LawsPartition of joint family property - Maintainability of application - whether Suit No. 1101 of 1997 filed by the plaintiff Somasundaram challenging the compromise decree dated 06.08.1984 was barred under Order XXIII Rule 3A? - compromise decree questioned by High Court - HELD THAT - A party to a consent decree based on a compromise to challenge the compromise decree on the ground that the decree was not lawful, i.e., it was void or voidable has to approach the same court, which recorded the compromise and a separate suit challenging the consent decree has been held to be not maintainable. In Suit No.1101 of 1987, the plaintiff prayed for a declaration declaring that the decree passed in O.S. No. 37 of 1984 is sham and nominal, ultravires, collusive, unsustainable invalid, unenforceable and not binding on the plaintiffs - On the basis of grounds which have been taken by the plaintiff in Suit No.1101 of 1987, the only remedy available to the plaintiff was to approach the court in the same case and satisfy the court that compromise was not lawful. Rule 3A was specifically added by the amendment to bar separate suit to challenge the compromise decree which according to legislative intent to arrest the multiplicity of proceedings. We, thus, do not find any error in the judgment of trial court and High Court holding that Suit No.1101 of 1987 was barred under Order XXIII Rule 3A. We having found that Suit No.1101 of 1987 being barred under Order XXIII Rule 3A, it is not necessary for us to enter into correctness or otherwise of the grounds taken in the plaint for questioning the compromise decree dated 06.08.1984. The compromise decree dated 06.08.1984, thus, could not have been questioned in Suit No. 1101 of 1987. Partition of joint family of three branches - main plank of submission on behalf of respondent No.1 is that after the partition dated 07.11.1960, the three branches had separated and joint family status came to end - HELD THAT - In Bhagwan Dayal Vs. Reoti Devi, 1961 (9) TMI 90 - SUPREME COURT , this Court examined the principles of Hindu Law and principles of Hindu Joint Family. In paragraph 16, it was held that the general principle is that every Hindu family is presumed to be joint unless the contrary is proved; but this presumption can be rebutted by direct evidence or by course of conduct. It is the case of the defendant No.1 that the compromise decree dated 06.08.1984 is nothing but implementation of agreement dated 08.03.1981. It is, thus, clear that the case of D-1 is that there was partition of all properties standing in the names of three branches and allocated to different branches on 08.03.1981, which has been subsequently implemented by consent decree dated 06.08.1984. As per the case of defendant, the Vasudeva Textiles Mills was given to the branch of Rangasamy, property at Coonoor was taken by D-1 and properties at Somnur by D-4 - When the D-1 comes with the case that there was partition on 08.03.1981 of all immovable properties standing in the names of three branches, which was implemented on 06.08.1984, the conclusion is irresistible that family was joint and had the three branches were not part of joint Hindu family, there was no occasion for attempting any partition on 08.03.1981 as claimed by D-1. The fact that defendant No.1 is coming with the case that there was partition on 18.03.1981 itself proves that three branches were joint till then as per case of D-1 himself. It is concluded that all three branches have equal share in the Tatabad residential property, i.e., Item No.X of Schedule 'B' of plaint in Original Suit No.1101 of 1987. This residential property being not a part of O.S.No.37 of 1984, there is no bar in seeking partition of the said property by the plaintiff. Accordingly we declare that plaintiff/defendant No.7, defendant No.1 and defendant No.4 are entitled to 1/3rd share jointly in the aforesaid Item No.X of Schedule 'B' of the suit property ( 1/3rd share each to K. Rangasamy branch, S.K. Kumarasamy branch and S.K. Chinnasamy branch). Accordingly, a preliminary decree for partition shall be drawn for the aforesaid property. Civil appeal partly allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity and enforceability of the compromise decree dated 06.08.1984. 2. Whether the suit O.S.No.1101 of 1987 is barred by Order XXIII Rule 3A of CPC. 3. Entitlement to shares in the residential building at Tatabad. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity and Enforceability of the Compromise Decree Dated 06.08.1984: The appellants challenged the compromise decree dated 06.08.1984 in Suit No.37 of 1984, claiming it was obtained through fraud and misrepresentation. They argued that the decree was unfair and inequitable, alleging that Janakiammal, who was a party to the suit, was unaware of the compromise application or its terms, and that she signed the papers under misrepresentation. The decree allotted only shares of a sick mill to Janakiammal and her son, Somasundaram, without any immovable property, which was claimed to be unfair given the family’s substantial assets. The respondents contended that the compromise was signed by all parties, including Janakiammal, and that the properties were divided according to an arrangement made in 1981. The High Court concluded that the compromise decree was valid, and the plaintiff failed to prove any fraud or misrepresentation. 2. Whether the Suit O.S.No.1101 of 1987 is Barred by Order XXIII Rule 3A of CPC: The trial court and the High Court both held that the suit O.S.No.1101 of 1987 was barred by Order XXIII Rule 3A of CPC, which prohibits a separate suit to set aside a decree on the ground that the compromise on which the decree is based was not lawful. The courts emphasized that the proper remedy for challenging the compromise decree was to approach the court that recorded the compromise, not to file a separate suit. The Supreme Court upheld this view, stating that the legislative intent behind Rule 3A was to prevent multiplicity of litigation and to ensure that any challenge to a compromise decree should be made in the same court that recorded it. 3. Entitlement to Shares in the Residential Building at Tatabad: The appellants claimed a share in the residential building at Tatabad, which was not included in the compromise decree dated 06.08.1984. They argued that the property, although in the name of defendant No.1, was purchased from joint family funds and thus belonged to all three branches of the family. The respondents contended that the property was purchased by defendant No.1 individually. The Supreme Court found that the property was indeed purchased from the funds of Swamy and Swamy Plantations, a company owned by the family, and that all three branches had shares in the company. The Court concluded that the property was a joint family property and that all three branches were entitled to a 1/3rd share each in the property. Consequently, a preliminary decree for partition was ordered for the Tatabad property. Conclusion: The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeals, decreeing that the residential property at Tatabad was a joint family property and ordering a partition of the property among the three branches of the family. The suit O.S.No.1101 of 1987 was otherwise barred under Order XXIII Rule 3A of CPC, and the challenge to the compromise decree dated 06.08.1984 was not entertained. The parties were directed to approach the trial court for passing an appropriate final decree regarding the partition of the Tatabad property.
|
