Madras High Court
S.Sonachalam vs R.Kamaraj on 9 February, 2021
Author: T.Ravindran
Bench: T.Ravindran
S.A.No.954 of 2009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 09.03.2021
PRONOUNCED ON:22.03.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAVINDRAN
S.A.No.954 of 2009
and
M.P.Nos.1 & 2 of 2009
S.Sonachalam,
Son of Sadhasivam Chettiar,
D.No.3, 1st Cross Street,
Maravaneri,
Salem 636 007. ... Appellant
Vs.
1. R.Kamaraj
Son of P.Ramasamy
2. S.Soundaram,
Wife of Late R.Shanmugam
3. Maheswari
Daughter of Late R.Shanmugham
4. Senthilkumar (Died)
Son of Late R.Shanmugham,
1/27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A.No.954 of 2009
Respondents 1 to 4 residing at
2/11, Ramasamy Chettiar Compound,
Nethimedu,
Salem-2.
[ R2 S.Soundaram as LR's of the
deceased 4th respondent vide
order of Court dated 09.02.2021.
Recorded in the memo SR.1174
dated 03.02.2016]
5. S.Sivananth,
Son of Sonachalam,
14/170, I Cross,
Lee Bazaar,
Salem 9.
6. S.Sivaraj,
Son of Sonachalam,
No.3, I Cross Street,
Marvaneri,
Salem 636 007. ... Respondents
Prayer:
Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C., against the
judgment and decree of the Learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Salem
dated 24.11.2006 made in A.S.No.138 of 2006 confirming the judgment ad
decree of the learned I Additional District Munsif of Salem dated
01.08.2005 made in O.S.No.1816 of 2004.
2/27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A.No.954 of 2009
For Appellant : Mr.J.Rama Krishnan
For R1 : Mr.V.Sekar
For R2 & R3 : S.Kalyanaraman
For R5 & R6 : P.Dinesh Kumar
R4 : Died
*****
JUDGMENT
Challenge in this second appeal is made to the judgment and decree dated 24.11.2006 passed in A.S.No.138 of 2006 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Court, Salem, confirming the judgment and decree dated 01.08.2005 passed in O.S.No.1816 of 2004 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Salem.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rankings in the trial court.
3/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ S.A.No.954 of 2009
3. The second defendant in O.S.No.1816 of 2004 is the appellant in this second appeal.
4. Suit for declaration and permanent injunction.
5. The case of the plaintiffs in brief is that the plaintiffs are entitled to the suit properties by virtue of the partition deed dated 06.03.1986 whereunder, the plaintiffs had been allotted the B and C schedule respectively and the patta also stands in the name of the plaintiffs independently and the plaintiffs are enjoying the suit properties by paying Kists etc., The suit properties belonged to the father of the plaintiffs, P.Ramasamy Chettiar and in the year 1948, P.Ramasamy Chettiar, his father and his brothers including the first defendant divided their family properties and on 13.03.1955, the first defendant and his brother by name Gnanam @ Gnana Sekaran executed a registered settlement deed in favour of P.Ramasamy Chettiar and delivered the possession on the same date and the settlement deed was acted upon and subsequently as above pointed out, in the family partition effected between P.Ramasamy Chettiar and his sons, 4/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ S.A.No.954 of 2009 the suit properties had been allotted to the plaintiffs. The defendants are strangers to the suit properties. The first defendant is the brother of the plaintiffs' father. The second defendant is the son of P.Sadhasivam Chettiar, the another brother of the plaintiffs' father. The defendants 3 and 4 are the sons of the second defendant. The first defendant and Sadhasivam Chettiar had divided their properties already in the year 1948 and Sadhasivam sold his share of the properties and enjoying the profits of the same along with his sons and grandsons. The first defendant is unmarried and he is under the beck and call of SadhasivamChettiar's family. After the settlement deed dated 13.03.1955, the first defendant ceased to have any right, interest or possession over the suit properties. Gnanam @ Gnana Sekaran died long back. At the instance of P.Sadhasivam, the first defendant has created a false document styling it as cancellation of settlement deed on 29.05.1993 in respect of the suit properties. In law, the settlement deed cannot be cancelled and in the guise of the abovesaid cancellation deed, the defendants attempted to interfere with the plaintiffs' possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. Pending suit, the first plaintiff died and his LR's had been brought on record as the plaintiffs 3 to 5. Pending suit, the 5/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ S.A.No.954 of 2009 first defendant also died and hence according to the plaintiffs, they had been necessitated to lay the suit against the defendants for appropriate reliefs.
6. The second defendant resisted the plaintiff's suit contending that the suit laid by the plaintiffs is not maintainable either in law or on facts and the suit for partition in O.S.No.466 of 1985 is pending on the file of the Additional Subordinate Court, Salem, in which the plaintiffs herein are the defendants 4 and 5 and the LRs of the first plaintiff had also been arrayed as the parties in the abovesaid suit. The plaint is silent about the abovesaid suit. The properties involved in O.S.No.466 of 1985 are unnecessarily included in the present suit. One Ponnusamy Chettiar had four sons, Sadhasivam, Ramasamy, Venkatraman, Gnanam @ Gnana Sekaran. The plaintiffs have no right, title, interest or possession over the suit properties and the alleged gift deed putforth by the plaintiffs dated 13.03.1955 is invalid in law and not acted upon. The purpose of the gift deed which is being a conditional one, accordingly not given effect to. The suit properties have been enjoyed by the defendants as well as the plaintiffs as co-owners. The rights of the parties could only be determined in O.S.No.466 of 1985. 6/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ S.A.No.954 of 2009 The case of the plaintiffs that the defendants attempted to interfere with their possession qua the suit properties is totally false and hence the suit laid by the plaintiffs being without any cause of action is liable to be dismissed.
7. The defendants 3 and 4 resisted the plaintiffs' suit contending that it is false to state that the suit properties had been allotted to the plaintiffs under the partition deed dated 06.03.1996. Ponnusamy Chettiar and his sons partitioned the family properties by way of the partition deed in the year 1948. It is false to state that the first defendant and Gnanam @ Gnana Sekaran executed a registered settlement deed in favour of P.Ramasamy Chettiar qua the suit properties. Even if, any settlement deed alleged to have been executed, it is not valid in law. The suit properties are shown as the F schedule properties, which had been decided to be partitioned later by Ponnusamy Chettiar and his sons in the year 1948. Therefore, no Will or settlement could be effected by Ponnusamy Chettiar qua the ancestral properties. The partition deed relied upon the plaintiffs is invalid in law. The defendants are in the joint possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. The gun powder business said to have been run by P.Ramasamy 7/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ S.A.No.954 of 2009 Chettiar had been shifted to some other place and accordingly the object for which the settlement deed dated 13.03.1955 was executed been over and hence the first defendant had cancelled the same on 21.05.1993. The case of the plaintiffs that the defendants endeavored to disturb their possession and enjoyment of the suit properties is totally false and there is no cause of action for the suit and the suit is liable to be dismissed.
8. In support of the plaintiffs' case, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined. Exs.A1 to A70 were marked. On the side of the defendants, D.Ws.1 to 3 were examined. Exs.B1 to B12 were marked.
9. On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced in the matter and the submissions putforth by the respective parties, the Courts below were pleased to decree the suit in favour of the plaintiffs as prayed for. Challenging the same, the second appeal has been preferred by the second defendant.
8/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ S.A.No.954 of 2009
10. At the time of admission of the second appeal, the following substantial questions of law was formulated for consideration.
Whether in law the interpretation upon Ex.A2 as concluded by the Courts below are right in law and as such the Ex.A2 and all other documents in pursuance of Ex.A2 is binding on the appellant especially when all the joint family members are not parties to Ex.A2?
11. From the pleas and materials putforth by the respective parties, in support of their various contentions, it is noted that Ponnusamy Chettiar had four sons namely Sadhasivam, Ramasamy,Venkatraman and Gnanam @ Gnana Sekaran. It is found that Ponnusamy Chettiar and his four sons had divided the family properties by way of a partition deed dated 20.05.1948, the copy of which has been marked as Ex.A1. On a perusal of Ex.A1, it is found that after allotting the A to E schedules described in the partition deed to the various sharers, the parties to the abvoesaid partition deed had decided to keep the F schedule properties described in the abovesaid 9/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ S.A.No.954 of 2009 partition deed in common amongst the sharers. The execution of Ex.A1 partition deed is not in dispute and the parties are also not in issue that the F schedule properties described in Ex.A1 had been kept in common by resolving that the same should be subsequently partitioned amongst the family members.
12. The first defendant is the son of Ponnusamy Chettiar. The second defendant is the grandson of Ponnusamy Chettiar born to his son Sadhasivam. The defendants 3 and 4 are the sons of the second defendant. The plaintiffs 1 and 2 are the grandsons of Ponnusamy Chettiar through his son P.Ramasamy Chettiar. Now, as per the materials placed on record, it is found that Ponnusamy Chettiar had executed a Will on 27.02.1955 bequeathing the shares allotted to him under Ex.A1 partition deed as well as the properties described in the F schedule under Ex.A1 as the common properties amongst his four sons and the abovesaid Will is the bone of contention between the parties in the present litigation. Under the abovesaid Will, Ponnusamy Chettiar had allotted the various the shares to his four sons as detailed therein and following the execution of Ex.A2 Will, 10/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ S.A.No.954 of 2009 it is the case of the plaintiffs that the sons of Ponnusamy Chettiar had approved and ratified the abovesaid Will by executing various documents amongst themselves or in favour of third parties and therefore according to them, though the F schedule properties covered in Ex.A1 had been kept in common, it is their case that Ponnusamy Chettiar as the father of the family, is entitled to partition the said properties by way of Ex.A2 Will and thus according to them, though Ex.A2 is styled as a Will by Ponnusamy Chettiar, it is in effect only a family arrangement or partition effected by the Kartha of the family ie., Ponnusamy Chettiar and accordingly contended that as the abovesaid partition effected by Ponnusamy Chettiar under Ex.A2, had been ratified by his sons by executing various documents qua the properties allotted to them under Ex.A2 and accordingly it is putforth that the suit properties had been acquired by the plaintiff's father P.Ramasamy Chettiar and in the family partition effected between his sons namely the plaintiffs, the suit properties had come to be allotted to the plaintiffs. The partition deed relied upon by the plaintiffs dated 06.03.1996 is marked as Ex.A9. Thus according to the plaintiffs, they derived title to the suit properties under Ex.A9 partition deed.
11/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ S.A.No.954 of 2009
13. Inasmuch as, the second appeal revolves around the construction of Ex.A2 as to whether the same is a Will or a family arrangement / partition effected by Ponnusamy Chettiar, we will have to bestow the attention as regards the construction of the abovesaid document as done by the Courts below and adjudicate whether the determination of the Courts below that Ex.A2, though styled as a Will, is only a partition effected by Ponnusamy Chettiar as the karta of the family amongst his sons is correct and legally sustainable.
14. From the available materials placed on record, it is found that the first defendant who had been allotted a share under Ex.A2 along with his brother Gnanam @ Gnana Sekaran are found to have executed a settlement deed qua the properties allotted to them in favour of the plaintiffs' father P.Ramasamy Chettiar. The plaintiffs' father P.Ramasamy Chettiar is also one of the beneficiaries under Ex.A2. As rightly concluded by the Courts below, thus on a perusal of the above settlement deed executed by the first defendant and Gnanam @ Gnana Sekaran on 13.03.1955 marked as Ex.A3, 12/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ S.A.No.954 of 2009 it is evident that they had clearly admitted the validity of Ex.A2. Therefore, by way of Ex.A2, as rightly concluded by the Courts below, the three sons of Ponnusamy Chettiar had ratified Ex.A2.
15. The second defendant's father Sadhasivam is also found to have ratified the same by executing an agreement on 16.05.1955 with reference to the properties allotted to him under Ex.A2, with his brother Gnanam @ Gnana Sekaran and on a perusal of the abovesaid agreement dated 16.05.1955 marked as Ex.A4, as rightly concluded by the Courts below, the second defendant's father had ratified the validity of Ex.A2 executed by his father Ponnusamy Chettiar.
16. In addition to that, it is also noted that the second defendant's father Sadhasivam Chettiar, the plaintiffs' father Ramasamy and the first defendant had executed a release deed qua the properties allotted to them under Ex.A2 in favour of Gnanam @ Gnana sekaran on 25.03.1963, the copy of which release deed has been marked as Ex.A5 and as rightly concluded by the Courts below, by way of Ex.A5, the release deed, the 13/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ S.A.No.954 of 2009 executants of the same had ratified the authority/validity of Ex.A2 executed by their father Ponnusamy Chettiar, even though the properties covered under Ex.A2 are ancestral in nature.
17. Not stopping there, the second defendant's father Sadhasivam Chettiar, who is a beneficiary under Ex.A2, had by way of a partition effected with his sons on 04.06.1992 dealt with the properties allotted to him under Ex.A2 and therefore, it is found that as rightly concluded by the Courts below, the second defendant's father had partitioned even the properties allotted to him under Ex.A2 along with his sons and the abovesaid factum would only go to disclose that the second defendant had accorded due acceptance and validity to Ex.A2.
18. Furthermore, the second defendant's brother Paramasivam, S/o, Sadhasivam Chettiar had even alienated the properties allotted to him to the plaintiffs' mother and also to Gnanam @ Gnana sekaran by way of the sale deeds dated 14.04.1965 and 24.11.1966 which have been exhibited as Exs.A7 and A8. The abovesaid documents would also fortify the case of the 14/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ S.A.No.954 of 2009 plaintiffs that Ex.A2 had been acted upon throughout not only by the sons of Ponnusamy Chettiar, but also by his grandsons. Later Gnanam @ Gnana sekaran had alienated the properties purchased by him under Ex.A8 sale deed to Govindhammal and thus it is found that the abovesaid document also strengthens the acceptance, legality and authenticity of Ex.A2 by the beneficiaries as determined by the Courts below.
19. In the light of the abovesaid position, though under Ex.A1 partition deed, the F schedule properties had been kept in common with the determination to partition the same later, however, the karta of the family namely Ponnusamy Chettiar had decided to bequeath the said properties along with the properties allotted to him under Ex.A1 partition deed amongst his sons under Ex.A2 and when it is noted that Ex.A2 executed by Ponnusamy Chettiar had been ratified by his four sons as well as by his grandsons and thereby the four sons of Ponnusamy Chettiar having impliedly given their consent to Ponnusamy Chettiar in partitioning the F schedule properties covered under Ex.A1. In such view of the matter, when the karta of the family, has the undoubted right and privilege of effecting a 15/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ S.A.No.954 of 2009 partition of the ancestral properties amongst his sons with or without their consent, when it is not projected or established that the partition effected under Ex.A2 is not a fair one, all put together, the Courts below are found to be justified in holding Ex.A2 as a deed of partition, though the same is styled as a Will. In this connection, the Courts below have placed reliance upon the decisions of our High Court reported in AIR [38] 1951 Madras, 506 [M/s. M.M.Meyyappa Chettiar Vs. Commissioner of Income tax Madras ],wherein the position of law has been expatiated that the father has the undoubted right and privilege to effect the partition of the family properties between himself and his sons with or without their consent and accordingly, the partition effected under Ex.A2 being fair and equal and as abovenoted, being ratified by all the sons of Ponnusamy Chettiar, one way or the other, resultantly, the Courts below are found to be justified in holding that Ex.A2 is only a deed of partition effected by Ponnusamy Chettiar dividing the ancestral properties along with his properties amongst his four sons. The position of law rendered in the abovesaid decision qua the entitlement of the father to effect a partition of the family properties has been extracted below:
16/27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ S.A.No.954 of 2009 “Under the Mitakshara law the father has the undoubted right and privilege of effecting a partition between himself and his sons, whether they are majors or minors without their consent. He may divide the properties physically or may only bring about a division in status. This division may be between himself and his sons or even between the sons inter se. The partition so made, however, must, be fair and equal. If the partition is unequal and unfair it is open to the sons if they are majors to repudiate the partition, but if they are minors, it is open to them to avoid that partition by appropriate proceedings after they attain majority. The partition therefore will be good until it is set aside. It is not void and is not without effect. This right of avoidance based on the inequality of the shares is a personal right of the minors and can not be exercised by others. The power is not a conditional power in the sense that if the condition of the partition being fair and equal is not satisfied, the power ceases to have operative force.” 17/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ S.A.No.954 of 2009
20. In the light of the abovesaid position, the contention has been putforth by the second defendant's counsel that by way of Ex.A2, Ponnusamy Chettiar having dealt with the ancestral properties kept in common under Ex.A1, hence according to him, as per law, since Ponnusamy Chettiar is disentitled to Will the ancestral properties without the consent of his sons, according to him, Ex.A2 is a invalid document. However as above pointed out, as rightly held by the Courts below, though Ex.A2 is styled as a Will, when infact, it is only a partition deed effected by Ponnusamy Chettiar, dividing the ancestral properties amongst his four sons and when the act of Ponnusamy Chettiar effecting the partition of the common properties under Ex.A2 had been ratified by his sons in various ways as above discussed, the Courts below are found to be justified in considering and holding Ex.A2 as a deed of partition, and accordingly when the sons of Ponnusamy Chettiar had derived right in praesenti to the various shares allotted to them under Ex.A2, they are found to be entitled to deal with the same, following Ex.A2 and therefore, the contention putforth by the second defendant's counsel that the gift deed Ex.A3 dated 13.03.1955 having been 18/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ S.A.No.954 of 2009 executed before the demise of Ponnusamy Chettiar, the same should be considered as invalid, as such, cannot be countenanced. When it is found that Ex.A2 though styled as a Will, is not really a testamentary instrument executed by Ponnusamy Chettiar, but only a deed of partition effected by him as the karta of the family allotting the various shares to his four sons, in such view of the matter, the sons acquired right to the shares allotted to them under Ex.A2 in praesenti and entitled to deal with the same as the absolute owners thereof.
21. In the light of the abovesaid factors, the first defendant and Gnanam @ Gnana Sekaran having executed Ex.A3 settlement deed in favour of P.Ramasamy, thereafter they are found to be not entitled to revoke the same. In such view of the matter, the alleged cancellation of the settlement deed by the first defendant alone on 21.05.1993 marked as Ex.43, as rightly held by the Courts below, the other settlor namely Ganam @ Gana sekaran or his Lrs having not chosen to cancel the settlement deed and when it is found that the first defendant had chosen to cancel the settlement deed nearly 38 years after the execution of Ex.A3 and when the first defendant is 19/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ S.A.No.954 of 2009 disentitled to revoke the settlement deed after the execution of the same in favour of P.Ramasamy and by way of the cancellation deed, the execution of settlement deed having been admitted by the defendants one way or the other and merely because the object of the settlement deed is over that alone would not be a sound reason for cancelling the same, particularly by one of the settlors, that too, after the gap of 38 years. Therefore the Courts below are found to be justified in holding that the cancellation deed marked as Ex.43 has no legal sanctity and would have no binding effect on the plaintiffs. The contention putforth by the defendants that the settlement deed had not been acted upon also cannot be accepted in any manner, particularly when it is noted that Ex.A2 settlement deed had been executed only to enable the plaintiffs' father Ramasamy to continue his gun powder business, in such view of the matter, to say that it had been not acted upon after 38 years, no prudent person would accept the abovesaid reason for entitling the defendants to challenge the settlement deed on such untenable grounds.
20/27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ S.A.No.954 of 2009
22. When by way of Ex.A2, Ponnusamy Chettiar is found to have partitioned the ancestral properties along with his properties to his four sons and when as above pointed out, Ex.A2 has been rightly construed as only a partition deed executed by Ponnusamy Chettiar and not a Will and when the division of the ancestral properties effected by Ponnusamy Chettiar under Ex.A2 having been ratified by his four sons, as above pointed, accordingly, it is found that under Ex.A2, his sons had acquired right over their alleged shares in praesenti and entitled to deal with the same in accordance with law. Therefore, the argument cannot be putforth that Ex.A3 settlement deed should be construed as invalid on the footing that it deals with the ancestral properties. Though the ancestral properties had been dealt with under Ex.A2 document, when by way of the same, Ponnusamy Chettiar had allotted the properties to his sons fairly and thereby the sons getting right over their alleged shares immediately pursuant to Ex.A2, as rightly held by the Courts below, Ex.A3 settlement deed is found to be valid in all aspects and binding on the parties concerned.
21/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ S.A.No.954 of 2009
23. As rightly determined by the Courts below, particularly the trial court, though the defendants would contend that the plaintiffs are not the owners of the suit properties and Ex.A2 had not been ratified by the sons of Ponnusamy Chettiar, however considering the evidence of D.Ws.1 and 2 in toto, when it is found that they would only plead complete ignorance about the various documents executed by the sons of Ponnusamy Chettiar after Ex.A2 and also not able to say anything about the entitlement of the first defendant to cancel the settlement deed Ex.A3 under Ex.43, the Courts below are found to be justified in also rejecting the defence version by placing reliance upon their own evidence as detailed in the judgment.
24. In the light of the abovesaid discussions, when Ex.A2 is construed as a partition deed effected by Ponnusamy Chettiar, the authorities putforth by the plaintiffs' counsel that Ponnusamy Chettiar is not entitled to Will the ancestral properties as per law, in my considered opinion, would not be applicable to the case at hand. Though Ex.A2 is styled as a Will, however the document could only be construed as a partition effected by Ponnusamy Chettiar and the same having been ratified or approved by his sons, in such 22/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ S.A.No.954 of 2009 view of the matter, the authorities relied upon by the second defendant's counsel on the invalidity of the Will dealing with the ancestral properties reported in 1980 Supplement SCC 298 [ Kalyani (Dead) by Lrs Vs. Narayanan and others] and 1972 (4) SCC[ M.N.Aryamurthy and another Vs. M.D.Subbaraya Setty (dead) through LR and others] are found to be not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case at hand. Further even in the 1st decision above referred to, it has been held that the father has the right to make a partition by Will of the joint family properties, provided the same is made with the consent of the joint family members.
25. For the proposition of law that the construction of document is a substantial question of law, reliance is placed on the decision reported in 2000 (7) SCC 60 [Santakumari and others Vs. Lakshmi Amma Janaki Amma (d) by Lrs and Others]. There is no dispute regarding the abovesaid proposition of law.
23/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ S.A.No.954 of 2009
26. The second defendant's counsel also placed reliance upon the decisions reported in CDJ 2018 MHC 414 [R.Manikandan Vs. Arulmighu Koodamudayar Ayyanar Koil Through its Executive Officer, Virudhunagar] and CDJ 2018 MHC 1275 [ Minor Shankar represented by his mother Nallammal Vs. Muruganandam & Another]. The principles of law outlined in the abovesaid decisions are taken into consideration and followed as applicable to the case at hand.
27. In view of the abovesaid factors, the interpretation of the Courts below upon Ex.A2 as a deed of partition is right in law and even though the sons of Ponnusamy Chettiar are not direct parties to Ex.A2, when the sons of Ponnusamy Chettiar had ratified Ex.A2 by executing various documents, as above pointed out and thereby admitted the validity of Ex.A2 executed by their father, in such view of the matter, the determination of the Courts below that Ex.A2 is binding on the second defendant and other defendants do not warrant any interference.
24/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ S.A.No.954 of 2009
28. The reasonings and conclusions of the Courts below for upholding the plaintiff's case being founded on the proper appreciation of the materials placed on record both oral and documentary and particularly based upon the proper interpretation and construction of Ex.A2 and when they are not shown to be perverse, illogical and irrational, I do not find any valid reason to interfere with the same. The substantial question of law formulated in the second appeal is accordingly answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
29. In conclusion, the judgment and decree dated 24.11.2006 passed in A.S.No.138 of 2006 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Court, Salem, confirming the judgment and decree dated 01.08.2005 passed in O.S.No.1816 of 2004 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Salem are confirmed. Resultantly, the second appeal is dismissed with costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions, if any, are closed.
22.03.2021 mfa Index:yes Internet:yes 25/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ S.A.No.954 of 2009 To
1. The Additional Subordinate Judge, Additional Subordinate Court, Salem.
2.The Additional District Munsif, Additional District Munsif Court, Salem.
Copy to The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court, Chennai.
26/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ S.A.No.954 of 2009 T.RAVINDRAN, J.
mfa Pre-delivery judgment made in S.A.No.954 of 2009 and M.P.Nos.1 & 2 of 2009 22.03.2021 27/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/