Madras High Court
Nadesan vs Pachai (Died) on 29 April, 2022
Author: K.Kalyanasundaram
Bench: K.Kalyanasundaram, V.Sivagnanam
A.S.No.71 of 2014 and Cross objection No.95 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 31.03.2022
PRONOUNCED ON : 29.04.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM
and
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM
A.S.No.71 of 2014
&
Cross Objection No.95 of 2015
A.S.No.71 of 2014
1.Nadesan
2.Muniammal ... Appellants
Vs.
Pachai (Died)
1.Munuswamy
2.Kandaswamy
Janakiammal (Died)
3.Annapoorani
4.Pavun
5.Savithiri
6.Manoranjitham
7.Srinivasan
8.Seethalakshmi
9.Rajendhiran
Pachaiyammal (Died) ... Respondents
Prayer in A.S.No.71 of 2014 : First Appeal has been filed under Section 96 of
the Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree dated 16.09.2013
passed in O.S.No.11 of 2010 on the file of the 1st Additional District Judge,
Tindivanam.
For Appellants : Mr.N.Suresh
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/44
A.S.No.71 of 2014 and Cross objection No.95 of 2015
For Respondent Nos.1,
2, 5 to 9 : Mr.P.Dineshkumar
For Respondent Nos.3 : Mr.J.Prithivi
& 4 in A.S.No.71/2014
Cross Objection No.95 of 2015
1.Munusamy
2.Kandasamy
3.Annapoorani
4.Pavun
5.Savithiri
6.Manoranjitham ... Cross objectors
Vs.
1.Nadesan
2.Muniammal
Pachai (died)
Janaki Ammal (died)
3.Srinivasan
4.Seethalakshmi
5.Rajendhiran
Pachiyammal (died) ... Respondents
Prayer in Cross Objection No.95 of 2015 : Cross objection has been filed
under Order 41 Rule 22 of CPC, against the judgment and decree dated
16.09.2013 passed in O.S.No.11 of 2010 on the file of the 1st Additional District
Judge, Tindivanam.
For Cross Objectors :Mr. P.DineshKumar
Nos.1, 2, 5 & 6
For Cross Objectors :Mr.J.Prithivi
Nos.3 & 4
For Respondents : Mr.N.Suresh
COMMON JUDGMENT
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/44 A.S.No.71 of 2014 and Cross objection No.95 of 2015 (Judgment of the Court was delivered by V.SIVAGNANAM, J) Aggrieved over the judgment and decree dated 16.09.2013 passed in O.S.No.11 of 2010 on the file of the 1st Additional District Judge, Tindivanam, the defendants 1 & 4 have preferred the first appeal and the plaintiffs 2, 3, 5 to 8 have preferred the Cross objection.
2.The first and the fourth defendants are the appellants herein and the plaintiffs 1 to 10 and the defendants 2 & 3 are the respondents in the first appeal. Pending suit, the first plaintiff viz., Pachai and the third defendant viz., Pachaiammal are died. Their Legal representatives were already on record.
3.For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rankings in the trial Court.
4.The plaintiffs filed the suit for the following prayer:
(i).To pass in favour of plaintiffs and as against the defendants a preliminary decree for partition and separate possession of plaintiff's 93/140 share in the suit properties.
(ii).To pass a final decree allotting specific share to the plaintiffs with costs of the suit payable by 1st https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/44 A.S.No.71 of 2014 and Cross objection No.95 of 2015 defendant and
(iii).To grant plaintiffs such further and other reliefs.
5.The substance of the plaintiffs' case is as follows:
One Ramasami and his father Thamburasa constituted a Hindu undivided family. The family was possessed 1 ¾ kanis of wet land in Mailam Village.
Ramasami had two wives viz.,Pachaiammal (D3) and Janakiammal (P4).
Pachaiammal is the first wife and her sister Janakiammal is the second wife.
Pachaiammal had two children viz., Natesan (D1) and Muniammal (D4).
Janakiammal had seven children viz., Pachai (P1), Munusami (P2), Kandasami (P3), Annapoorni (P5), Pavunu (P6), Savithri (P7), Rajendran (D2).
6.Pending suit, Pachai (P1) died and his Legal representatives viz., Manoranjitham (P8), Srinivasan (P9), Seethalakshmi (P10) are impleaded as parties and the third defendant Pachaiammal also died and her LRs viz., Natesan (D1), Muniammal (D4) are already on record. Ramasami was son of Thamburasa Gounder and Annapoorani. Elder brother of Annapoorani viz., Rangasami Gounder settled 1.64 acres of land in favour of Minor Ramasami. He was in possession and enjoyment of the joint family properties. The properties https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/44 A.S.No.71 of 2014 and Cross objection No.95 of 2015 were managed by Ramasami and the first defendant Natesan, who is the eldest son of Ramasami. From the income of the joint family properties, the properties mentioned in the plaint schedule were purchased in the name of Ramasami and in the name of the first defendant Natesan and the first plaintiff Pachai, Ramasami died intestate in the last week of April, 1983. After the death of Ramasami, the first defendant Natesan, who is the eldest male member of the family, managed the joint family properties. Thus, all the properties are the ancestral properties and out of the income of the ancestral properties, some properties have been purchased and enjoyed the same as the joint family properties by the plaintiffs and the defendants till the year 2004.
7.The first defendant Natesan, for the purpose of availing agricultural loan from Tindivanam Cooperative Land Development Bank, got signature of junior members and his father and they were not aware of the contents. In the year 2007, the Government waived the agricultural loan and the Tindivanam Cooperative Land Development Bank handed over the statement given by them to the first plaintiff Pachai. On verification, the first plaintiff Pachai found that it was mentioned in the statement that item Nos.15 to 17 were allotted to the first defendant Natesan in an oral partition. In this regard, the plaintiffs questioned the first defendant Natesan. Hence, the first defendant filed the suit https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/44 A.S.No.71 of 2014 and Cross objection No.95 of 2015 in O.S.No.21 of 2010 against the plaintiffs 1 to 3 and 2nd defendant on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tindivanam, for declaration of his absolute title to some of the suit schedule properties and for permanent injunction, in which, he pleaded an oral partition alleged to have been effected by his father in the year 1977. There was no oral partition effected in the year 1977. The suit properties are joint possession and enjoyment of the family members. The first defendant manipulated for transferring patta in his name. The suit properties are joint family properties of the plaintiffs 1 to 3, 7 and defendants 1 & 2. The 7th plaintiff Savithiri married in the year 1992, so she is also a coparcener along with the other male members. The plaintiffs 5, 6 and the 4 th defendant had been married long before in the year 1989. Therefore, in the suit properties, the plaintiffs 1 to 3, 7, the defendants 1 & 2 and their father Ramasami constitute a coparcenary, each is entitled to an undivided 1/7th share. On the death of their father, his 1/7th share devolved upon all the parties. In the share of Ramasami, the 4th plaintiff and the 3rd defendant are together entitled to one share in the 1/7th share of Ramasami. Therefore, 1/7th share of Ramasami will be divided into 10 shares taken by the plaintiffs 1 to 3 , 5 to 7, defendants 1, 2, 4 and the 4th plaintiff and the 3rddefendant together equally. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6/44 A.S.No.71 of 2014 and Cross objection No.95 of 2015 Thus, the plaintiffs together are entitled to 93/140 share and the defendants together are entitled to 47/140 shares. The first plaintiff Pachai died leaving the plaintiffs 4 and 8 to 10 as his legal heirs. They succeeded to the share of the first plaintiff and thus, claim the shares as prayed for.
8.The first defendant contested the suit and filed the written statement. He admitted that Ramasami owned certain properties. But the defendants denied the allegations that the properties were productive and nucleus. Pachaiammal (D3) is the legally wedded wife of Ramasami. Ramasami and Pachaimmal have two children viz., Natesan (D1) and Muniammal (D4). The alleged second wife viz., Janakiammal (P4) was previously married to one Murugesan S/o. Chidambara Gounder of V.Pudhupakkam. Later, she deserted him and settled with Ramasami, as his first wife Pachaiammal is her sister. Ramasami did not marry Janakiammal legally and she lived as a concubine of Ramasami. The plaintiffs 1 to 3, 5 to 7 and the second defendant are illegitimate children of Ramasami through Janakiammal. Therefore, the plaintiffs and the second defendant cannot claim any right or interest in the joint family properties of Ramasami.
9.Further, contended that Ramasami, during his lifetime, effected an oral https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 7/44 A.S.No.71 of 2014 and Cross objection No.95 of 2015 partition and allotted items 15 to 17 in the suit properties in Mailam Village to the share of the first defendant. He was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the properties and the same was admitted by the plaintiffs 1 & 2 and their father Ramasami acknowledging the oral partition in the year 1977 had given a letter to the Tindivanam Cooperative Land Development Bank, for obtaining loan by the first defendant in the year 1977 and 1995. The third plaintiff and the second defendant also admitted the oral partition of items 15 to 17 allotted to the first defendant. Further contended that from his separate income, he had purchased items 1 to 4 and 18 of the plaint schedule properties by way of the sale deeds from various persons.
10.Item No.14 of the suit properties in Mailam Village was not the joint family properties of Ramasami, it was purchased by Jayalalitha, who is wife of the first defendant, by way of a registered sale deed dated 28.12.2001 from her separate source of her own fund and money. The first defendant was exclusively enjoying the suit items of properties 1 to 4, 15 to 17, 18 and 14, since the plaintiffs disturbed him, he filed the suit in O.S.No.21 of 2010 on the file of the District Munsiff Court, Tindivanam, for declaration of his title and for permanent injunction.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 8/44 A.S.No.71 of 2014 and Cross objection No.95 of 2015
11.The trial Court framed the following five issues for its consideration:
“(i). Whether the contention of the defendants is that the 4th plaintiff Janaki was not the legal wife of Ramasami is correct?
(ii).Whether the alleged oral partition in the year 1977 is true?
(iii).Whether the 14 item of the properties belongs to the first defendant's wife Jayalalitha is correct?
(iv).Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for partition as prayed?
(v).To what relief the plaintiffs are entitled to?
12.In the trial Court, the third plaintiff Kandasamy examined himself as PW1. To support his case, Thandavaraya Gounder, Renganatha Gounder and Subburaya Gounder were examined as PW2, PW3 & PW4 respectively and also filed 15 documents as Exs.A1 to A15. On the defendant’s side, the first defendant Natesan examined himself as DW1. To support his case, one Ezhumalai and Vasudevan were examined as DW2 & DW3 and also filed 26 documents as Exs.P1 to P26.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 9/44 A.S.No.71 of 2014 and Cross objection No.95 of 2015
13.The trial Court, on considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the respective parties, dismissed the suit with regard to 14th item of the suit properties as it belongs to the first defendant's wife Jayalalitha and not the joint family properties of Ramasami. Further, it held that as the 5th, 6th plaintiffs and the 4th defendant were married before 1989, they are not entitled to get any share in the joint family properties. Hence, the suit is dismissed as against the 5th, 6th plaintiffs and the 4th defendant. So far as the 7th plaintiff is concerned, she married in the year 1992 but his father Ramasami died in the year 1983, so she did not become the co-parcener. Hence, she is also not entitled to get any share in the joint family properties but she is entitled to have 1/7th share belongs to Ramasami's 1/6th share and further, it held that the plaintiffs 1 to 3, the defendants 1 & 2 are entitled to 1/6th share in the suit properties, the share belongs to Ramasami 1/6th share has to be divided into other legal heirs of Ramasami, each 1/7th share, they are entitled. To this effect, the trial Court passed the preliminary decree without costs. Aggrieved by this judgment and decree, the defendants 1 and 4 filed this present appeal and the plaintiffs 2, 3, 5 to 8 filed the Cross Objection, questioning the dismissal of 14th https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 10/44 A.S.No.71 of 2014 and Cross objection No.95 of 2015 item of the plaint schedule properties as it is also a joint family properties of Ramasami and it ought to be included in the partition.
14.The learned counsel for the defendants 1 & 4/appellants submitted that the judgment and decree of the trial Court is against the evidence on record. The trial Court failed to decide the status of the plaintiffs, specifically, the status of the alleged second wife Janakiammal (P4). The trial Court failed to frame specific issue as to whether Janakiammal (P4) was legitimate wife of Ramasami. The trial Court failed to appreciate properly the defendant’s side documents Exs.B3 to B5 to support his case of oral partition effected in the year 1977. The trial Court, without any finding with regard to the status of Janakiammal and her children, held that the plaintiffs are entitled to partition in the joint family properties.
15.The first defendant produced sufficient evidence to support the case of oral partition and the allotment of items 15 to 17 in the suit properties. Thereafter, he was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the properties and he purchased the properties mentioned in the suit schedule items 1 to 4 and 18 by way of the sale deeds from the third persons. After the oral partition, his father Ramasami also purchased the properties separately in his name. The first https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 11/44 A.S.No.71 of 2014 and Cross objection No.95 of 2015 plaintiff Pachai also purchased the property in his name by way of the sale deed dated 13.11.1995. Therefore, everyone purchased the property separately in their name, it shows to prove the oral partition and separate enjoyment of the members of the joint family. The first defendant mortgaged his separate property in the year 1995, which is evidenced by Exs.B4 & B5, the documents Exs.B16 to P26 proved the fact that the first defendant purchased the property separately in his name and patta also stands in his name. The severance in status has been proved by the defendants. The trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence properly and commit grave error in finding item Nos.1 to 4 of the plaint schedule properties were his separate properties and not to be brought for partition along with the joint family properties. The property mentioned in item 14 of the plaint schedule property was purchased by his wife Jayalalitha by using her own fund and reiterated other grounds raised in the grounds of appeal and pleaded to set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court and to allow the appeal.
16.To support the argument, the learned counsel for the defendants placed reliance on the decision in M.N.Aryamurthi and another Vs. M.L.SubbarayaSetty (dead) by his legal representatives and others reported in https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 12/44 A.S.No.71 of 2014 and Cross objection No.95 of 2015 1972 AIR (SC) 1279, Kalyani (dead) by L.Rs Vs. Narayanan and others reported in 1980 AIR (SC) 1173, ApoorvaShantilal Shah Vs. Commissioner of Income – tax, Gujarat I, Ahmedabad reported in 1983 AIR (SC) 409, Pavayammal Vs. DevannaGoundarreported in 1988-2 M.L.J 162, KondiramBhikuKirdat, Vs.KrishnaBhikuKirdat (Deceased by L.Rs.) reported in AIR 1995 Supreme Court 297, MD.NoorulHoda Vs. BibiRaifunnisa and others reported in (1996) 7 Supreme Court Cases 767, Raj Kumar and another Vs. Official Receiver of the Estate of M/s.ChiranjiLal Ram Chand, Ludhiana and others, reported in AIR 1996 Supreme Court 941, Gandhi Vs. SaminathaGounder and another reported in AIR 2006 Madras 155, VathsalaManickavasagam& others Vs. N.Ganesan& another reported in CDJ 2013 SC 523 and Revanasiddappa and another Vs. Mallikarjun and others reported in (2011) 11 SCC page 1.
17.The learned counsel for the respondents 3 & 4 & Cross objectors 3 & 4 supported the judgment and decree of the trial Court and further, contended that the trial Court rightly rejected the document Exs.B3 to B5 as it is not an acceptable evidence to hold that the oral partition had been effected in the year 1977. The defendants admitted the nature of the joint family properties. The 4th https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 13/44 A.S.No.71 of 2014 and Cross objection No.95 of 2015 plaintiff and the 3rd defendant are sisters. The second marriage had taken place 65 years back and the first plaintiff was born through the second wife, now aged 64 years. The Madras Hindu Bigamy (Prevention and Divorce) Act, 1949, came into force only on 29.03.1949. Naturally, it would have been subsequent to the marriage between Ramasami and the 4th plaintiff. The status of the 4th plaintiff was not disputed by the 1st defendant in his plaint in O.S.No.21 of 2010 filed with the prayer for declaration of title with regard to some of these suit properties. The defendants admitted that the plaintiffs and the defendants have all along been living as a joint family until the alleged oral partition in the year 1977. Now, the defendants cannot dispute the status of the 4th plaintiff and her children. In Ex.B3, it is mentioned that the oral partition has taken place two years prior to its execution i.e. in the year 1975 and Exs.B4 & B5 refer to an oral partition said to have been held in 1977. The properties mentioned in Ex.B5 was purchased by Ramasami only after 1977, it falsified the case of the defendants with regard to oral partition. Further, the defendants had not produced any supportive evidence of public records to prove the oral partition. When the first defendant executed a sale deed Ex.B11 dated 05.05.1993, all the sons of Ramasami attested the sale deed and it shows the joint living of all family members. The trial Court erred in dismissing the claim https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 14/44 A.S.No.71 of 2014 and Cross objection No.95 of 2015 of the 5th and 6th plaintiffs that they are entitled to get equal share along with the male members of the family. Therefore, the 5th& 6th plaintiffs are entitled to equal allotment in the share along with the other male members and thus, pleaded to dismiss the appeal and allow the Cross objections.
18.The plaintiffs/respondents further pleaded to include the property purchased by the first plaintiff and the first defendant in item No.18 of the plaint schedule property by way of the sale deed dated 13.11.1995 by inadvertently the property was omitted to include the suit properties. Now, the plaintiffs/respondents are ready to include the property purchased by the first plaintiff Pachai as per Ex.A7, in survey No.231/1 and thus, pleaded to dismiss the appeal and to allow the cross objection.
19.Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the records.
20.The points for consideration are,
(i).Whether the 4th plaintiff Janakiammal is the legally wedded wife of Ramasami?
(ii).Whether her children through Ramasami viz., P1 to https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 15/44 A.S.No.71 of 2014 and Cross objection No.95 of 2015 P3, P5 to P7 and D2 are the legal children of Ramasami?
(iii).Whether the alleged oral partition pleaded by the defendants in the year 1977 is true and valid?
(iv).Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to share as claimed by them in the plaint?
(v).To what relief, the parties are entitled to.
21.The dispute in the litigation between the parties is, the partition of the family properties between them. It would be convenient to note the Genealogy for easy understanding of the contention of the parties and their case.
Thamburasa Gounder = Annapoorani / Ramasamy's two wives (died April 1983) Pachai Ammal (D3) Janaki Ammal (P4)
1.Natesan (D1) 1.Pachai (P1)
2.Muniammal (D4) 2.Munusamy (P2)
3.Kandasami (P3)
4.Annapoorni (P5) https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 16/44 A.S.No.71 of 2014 and Cross objection No.95 of 2015
5.Pavuna (P6)
6.Savithiri (P7)
7.Rajendiran (D2)
------
8.Manoranjitham (P8)
9.Srinivasan (P9)
10.Seethalakshmi (P10) (8 to 10 are Lrs of Pachai (P1))
22.The relationship of the parties are admitted except the question of legality of the marriage between Janakiammal (P4) with Ramasami and the legal status of the plaintiffs 1 to 3, 5 to 7 and the 2nd defendant born to Ramsami through Janakiammal.
23.First we have considered the legal status of the fourth plaintiff Janakiammal the second wife of Ramasami and her children born through Ramasami viz., P1 to P3, P5 to P7 and D2. The contention of the appellants/defendants 1 & 4 is that the fourth plaintiff Janakiammal is not the legally wedded wife of his father Ramasami and she is only a concubine and her children viz., P1 to P3, P5 to P7 and D2 are illegal sons and daughters. Being a concubine and illegal children, they are not entitled to claim any share in the plaint schedule properties. Further, contended that she was previously married to https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 17/44 A.S.No.71 of 2014 and Cross objection No.95 of 2015 one Murugesan S/o. Chidambara Gounder and lived with him for four years, thereafter, deserted him and lived with his father Ramasami and the children are born thereafter.
24.The learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs contended that the second wife Janakiammal (P4) is the sister of the first wife Pachaiammal of Ramasami. Sixty years before, Ramasami married Janakiammal also and the children are born to her through him. The allegation of previous marriage with Murugesan is denied as false and they are living in the same house as on date. Further, contended that the first defendant Natesan filed the suit in O.S.No.21 of 2010 before the District Munsif Court, Tindivanam, with a prayer for declaration and injunction with regard to the some of the suit properties, in which, he did not raise the issue of concubine and illegal children. Now, in the partition suit raised the issue with an ulterior motive and his contention is not supported by any evidence.
25.We have gone through the evidence on record. We have noticed that there is no evidence on record to support the contention of the appellants/defendants 1 to 4 that Janakiammal previously married one https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 18/44 A.S.No.71 of 2014 and Cross objection No.95 of 2015 Murugesan S/o. Chidambara Gounder and after four years, she deserted him and joined with Ramasami. This allegation is not supported by any evidence and no witnesses spoken about in this regard and not produced any evidence in support of their contention.
26.We have gone through the evidence of the parties. The plaintiffs' side, Kandasamy (PW1) was examined and he spoken about Janakiammal status with Ramasami and she lived with Ramasami as his wife and the children also lived as sons and daughters of Ramasami along with the first wife Pachaiammal and her sons. Thandavaraya Gounder (PW2), Renganatha Gounder (PW3), Subburaya Gounder (PW4) also spoken about joint living of Janakiammal and her children in the same house and relatives also treated them as husband and wife and children of Ramasami. The first defendant Natesan (DW1) during his cross examination, he was questioned about this aspect, he admitted in his evidence that in his suit in O.S.No.21 of 2010, he had stated that the plaintiffs Pachai (P1), Munusamy (P2), Kandasamy (P3) and Rajendiran (D2) are sons of Ramasami. Further, another defendants' side witnesses, Ehumalai (DW2) and Vasudevan (DW3), during their cross examination admitted that the plaintiffs viz.,Pachai (P1), Munusamy (P2), Kandasamy (P3) https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 19/44 A.S.No.71 of 2014 and Cross objection No.95 of 2015 and Rajendiran (D2) are sons of second wife of Janakiammal through Ramasami.
27.Therefore, the oral evidence of PW1 to PW3, DW1 & DW2 shows that Ramasami and Janakiammal lived in the same house with the first wife of Ramasami viz., Pachaiammal (D3) and they were treated as husband and wife as on date. It is evidenced by Ex.A9 joint patta issued by the Revenue Department with regard to Ramasami's property. Even the defendants did not state Janakiammal as concubine of his father and her children are illegal children in his plaint in O.S.No.21 of 2010 Ex.P14.
28.It is well settled that continues cohabitation for a number of years may raise the presumption of marriage. At this stage, the decision of this Court in Raghuvir Kumar and Ors Vs. Shanmughavadivu and Ors. reported in MANU/TN/0242/1971 (AIR 1971Mad 330) is to be taken into consideration. In this decision, this Court held that continuous cohabitation for a number of years may raise the presumption of marriage and quoted various decisions. For better appreciation, paragraphs 22 to 31 are restated herewith:
“22. . . . . . . .
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 20/44 A.S.No.71 of 2014 and Cross objection No.95 of 2015 In George v. Thyer, 1904-1 Ch 456 an English man and woman travelled to France with the intention of getting married and there purported to go through a form of marriage. On return they lived together in England as man and wife for thirty years and had several children. There was also evidence of recognition of the children by the family. On these facts the Court held that, though the alleged marriage was impossible according to French Law where the marriage is said to have taken place, the fact of long cohabitation was found sufficient to raise the presumption in favour of manage, and that the invalidity of the marriage according to French Law will not be sufficient to rebut that presumption.
23. In De Thoren v. Attorney-General, (1876) 1 AC 686 it was laid down that the presumption of marriage arising out of long cohabitation and repute is much stronger than the presumption in regard to other facts. There also a ceremony of marriage was gone through in Scotland and the parties lived together continuously for years as husband and wife believing themselves to be validly married and were regarded as such by all who knew them.Though the ceremony said to have taken place was invalid, the marriage was held to have been established by the force of habit and https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 21/44 A.S.No.71 of 2014 and Cross objection No.95 of 2015 repute and the onus of rebutting such a marriage by habit and repute was held to be on the persons who deny the marriage.
24. In Piers V. Piers, (1849-2 HLC 331), it was ruled by the House of Lords that the question of validity of a marriage cannot be tried like any other question of fact which is independent of presumption, for there is a strong presumption in favour of marriage, particularly after the lapse of a great length of time, and that such a presumption must be rebutted by strong, distinct and satisfactory disproof. At page 362 of the re ports the following observations of Lord Lyndhurst in the case of Mooris v. Davies, (1837-5 C and F 163) are extracted:
“the presumption of law is not lightly to be repelled. It is not to be broken in upon or shaken by a mere balance of probability. The evidence for the purpose of repelling it must be strong, distinct, satisfactory and conclusive………. The presumption must prevail unless it is most satisfactorily repelled by the evidence in the cause appearing conclusive to those who have to decide upon that question.”
25. In Re Taylor (deceased) Taylor v. Taylor, (1961-1 All ER 55) Lord Evershed, M.R., cited with https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 22/44 A.S.No.71 of 2014 and Cross objection No.95 of 2015 approval the said observations of Lord Lyndhurst in (1837-5 C and F 163) and said that once a presumption is raised from long cohabitation and reputation, there is a very heavy burden to rebut that presumption on persons who allege to the contrary, in this decision reference was also made to Re Taplin Watson v. Tate, (1937-3 All ER 105) where Simonds, J., dealing with the question of repute had expressed as follows:— “They were there received Info society which was not a society of loose and uncertain morals, but with proper views as to marital relations, and were at all times regarded as man and wife. This presumption is not to be disturbed except by evidence of the most cogent kind.” In this case it is clear from the evidence that the second plaintiff was received in the family of Palaniswamy practically as one of its members and his mother Thathammal and his wife, the first defendant and other relations were treating the second plaintiff as another wife of Palaniswamy in all these years upto the death of Palaniswamy. It is significant to note that there is no piece of evidence that the second plaintiff was ever referred to by any one as a concubine of Palaniswamy until his death in 1960 but, on the other hand there is https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 23/44 A.S.No.71 of 2014 and Cross objection No.95 of 2015 considerable evidence both oral and documentary, showing that she was treated and recognised as a member of the family and that Palaniswamy himself had acknowledged the second plaintiff as his wife.
26. In Re Thompson; Langham v. Thompson, ((1904) 91 LT 680) where from 1856 to 1866 a man and woman lived together as man and wife and had five children and where there was evidence that they had been treated as man and wife by friends and neighbours and that children had been recognised by the head of the father's family, the Court, in dealing with the question of legitimacy of the children born held that the presumption in favour of a marriage having taken place had been established from the mere fact of cohabitation. The Court applied then principle laid down in Lyle v. Ellwood, (1874) 19 Eq 98 at p. 107 which held that:
“Where a man and woman have long lived together as man and wife, and have been so treated by their Mends and neigh hours, there is a prima facie presumption that they really are, and have been, what they profess to be.”
27. In 19 Halsbury's Laws of England, Third https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 24/44 A.S.No.71 of 2014 and Cross objection No.95 of 2015 Edition, page 812, paragraph 1323 dealing with the presumption from cohabitation it is said:
“Where a man and woman have co-habited for such a length of time and in such circumstances as to have acquired the reputation of being man and wife a lawful marriage between them will generally be presumed, though there may be no positive evidence of any marriage handing taken place, and the presumption can be rebutted only by strong and weighty evidence to the contrary.” In paragraph 1324 it has been stated that where there is evidence of a ceremony of marriage having been gone through followed by the cohabitation of the parties, everything necessary for the validity of the marriage will be presumed in the absence of decisive evidence to the contrary. Reference is made in support of the principle aforesaid from the decision in Re Haynes Haynes v. Carter, (1906-94 LT 431). The facts of that case were as follows:— There was cohabitation between the parties as man and woman with two children from 1878 to 1893. There was general reputation as husband and wife, but there was some evidence doubting the repute and no https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 25/44 A.S.No.71 of 2014 and Cross objection No.95 of 2015 evidence of any marriage having been solemnised. The elder child was born in 1873 in maternal grandmother's house and registered by the mother in her maiden name. Younger child was born in 1879 and registered in father's name. On these facts it was held that a marriage must be presumed, but that only the younger child was legitimate.
28. In Nagachari v. Butchayya, AIR 1948 Mad 198 Chandrasekhara Ayyar, J.,expressed:
“The presumption to be drawn in favour of marriage from cohabitation will have to vary from country to country of society to society, where concubinage is permitted or recognised or where even if it is not expressly permitted it is winked at or condoned by the society to which the parties belong, the presumption in favour of marriage becomes weak. But where it is established by evidence that a man and woman were not merely living together but professed themselves to be husband and wife and were treated as such by the society in which they moved and this conduct and recognition extended over a sufficiently long period of time, a presumption can well be drawn in favour of marriage.” https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 26/44 A.S.No.71 of 2014 and Cross objection No.95 of 2015
29. Then reference has to be made to a recent judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Rajagopal Pillai v. Pakkiam Ammal, (1968-2 Mad LJ 411) which held that the presumption of law is the strongest of legal presumptions and not lightly to be repelled by a mere balance of probabilities and that the evidence repelling that presumption must be strong, distinct and satisfactory. After referring to the various decisions on the point, both English and Indian, dealing with the presumption of marriage, the learned Judge, Ramamurti and Alagiriswami, JJ. Expressed:
“The presumption of law is the strongest of legal presumptions and is not lightly to be repelled by a mere balance of probabilities and the evidence repelling that presumption must be strong, distinct and satisfactory. Every intendment is made in favour of a marriage de facto and the more distant, the date of the marriage, the more readily is the presumption drawn, based upon cohabitation and repute. The weight of the presumption gets strengthened when it is proved that the party whose marriage is in question distinctly intended to marry and went through a form of marriage with that intention and also subsequently lived together as man and wife and were esteemed and reputed as such by those who https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 27/44 A.S.No.71 of 2014 and Cross objection No.95 of 2015 knew them. The presumption still exists, even when there is no positive evidence of any marriage having taken place. The presumption is not only with regard to the factum of the marriage but also with regard to the performance of the requisite ceremonies to constitute a valid marriage.” As against these decisions which lend considerable support to the appellants' contention that there is a strong presumption in favour of the marriage and that the evidence adduced on the side of the defendants are quite insufficient to rebut the legal presumption arising from the established facts in this case, the learned counsel for the respondents referred to the following authorities in support of his contention that such a presumption cannot arise in the case of a second marriage.
30. In Nagarajamma v. State Bank of India, AIR 1961 Andh Pra 320 a view has been taken that where a person is already married, no presumption of second marriage arises by reason of long cohabitation though such presumption may be raised in the case of first marriage. Reliance was also placed on the unreported decision in S.A. No. 592 of 1921 where this Court had https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 28/44 A.S.No.71 of 2014 and Cross objection No.95 of 2015 expressed a similar view. The learned Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the above decision held that there is no evidence as to the factum of marriage and the mere fact that the alleged wife was described as a wife in some of the documents ranging from 1953 did not establish that she is the lawfully wedded wife of one Ramaswami and refused to invoke the presumption of marriage on the facts of that case. In passing they said that the presumption cannot be invoked in case of second marriage. We are not in a position to express our agreement with the view expressed in the above decision that the presumption of marriage cannot be raised in case where the first marriage is subsisting. In a society where second marriage is not prohibited under the statute or under the customary law, it is always open for any person to marry a second wife if he so desires and if he goes through a form of marriage and lives with the other party as husband and wife, we find no obstacle to the presumption being raised from the fact of long cohabitation and repute. Of course, if there is a statute such as the Madras Bigamy Prevention Act, 1949 or the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, a second marriage cannot be presumed from long cohabitation and repute, as such a marriage cannot be recognised in law. In our opinion the mere fact that there was an earlier marriage subsisting in this case. It https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 29/44 A.S.No.71 of 2014 and Cross objection No.95 of 2015 cannot be considered sufficient to rebut the presumption of a marriage arising out of long cohabitation and repute.
31. The learned counsel for the respondents then submitted, basing himself on the decision of the Supreme Court in Gokal Chand v. Parvin Kumari, AIR 1952 SC 231 that in any event the presumption of marriage in this case is a rebuttable one and that there are enough circumstances which completely destroy the presumption. It was laid down in AIR 1952 SC 231 that “It is well-settled that continuous cohabitation for a number of years may raise the presumption of marriage. In the present case, it seems clear that the plaintiff and Ram Piari lived and were treated as husband and wife for a number of years, and, in the absence of any material pointing to the contrary conclusion, a presumption might have been drawn that they were lawfully married. But the presumption which may be drawn from long cohabitation is rebuttable, and if there are circumstances which weaken or destroy that presumption, the Court cannot ignore them.” . . . . . . . ”
29.After going through the decision, on the fact of this case, we find https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 30/44 A.S.No.71 of 2014 and Cross objection No.95 of 2015 from the evidence which is showing their relationship as husband and wife and that, they were treated and recognised as such by the members of the family and they have been mixing with other members of the family without any distinction. Further, considering the age of the parties, the second marriage would have been happened before coming into force of The Madras Hindu Bigamy (Prevention and Divorce) Act, 1949 and we find that there is no evidence and circumstances, which weaken or destroy that presumption and the Court cannot ignore them. Hence, we agree with the decision of the trial Court on the issue relating to the status of the second wife Janakiammal and her children i.e. P1 to P3, P5 to P7 and D2 born through Ramasami and held that a lawful marriage between Ramasami and Janakiammal has been established. In this case, the plaintiffs P1 to P3, P5 to P7 and D2 are legitimate sons and daughters of Ramasami and they are entitled to claim share in Ramasami's properties.
30.Next, we considered the nature of the plaint schedule properties. The plaintiffs filed the suit as the plaint schedule properties items 1 to 21 are ancestral properties of Ramasami, on fact, it is noticed by this Court that Ramasami did not get any property from his father Thamburasa Gounder or his https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 31/44 A.S.No.71 of 2014 and Cross objection No.95 of 2015 grandfather. Ramasami got property in Survey No.230/5, 1.64 Acres of land (item No.17 of the plaint schedule properties) by way of settlement deed dated 15.03.1928 from Rengasamy Gounder, who is the elder brother of Annapoorani. It is evidenced by document Ex.A1. Apart from this evidence, there is no evidence to show that Ramasami have received any ancestral property either from his father or from his grandfather. The property obtained by Ramasami by settlement deed dated 15.03.1928 Ex.A1 is to be treated as his separate property and not as an ancestral property.
31.We have noticed the remaining properties in plaint schedule item Nos.15 o 17 and 19 to 21 were purchased by Ramasami by way of sale deeds, which are as follows:
1.Item No.15 – purchased by Ramasami in Survey No.230/3 measuring an extent of 1.00 acres by way of sale deed dated 30.04.1955.
2.Item No.16 – purchased by Ramasami in Survey No.214/4C2 measuring an extent of 0.35 cents by way of sale deed dated 25.07.1974.
3.Item No.17 - settled in favour of Ramasami in https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 32/44 A.S.No.71 of 2014 and Cross objection No.95 of 2015 survey No.230/5 measuring an extent 1.64 acres by way of settlement deed dated 15.03.1928.
32.With regard to the properties in plaint schedule 5 to 13, they filed patta Ex.A9 alone, there is no document to show that the properties stand in whose name and there is no evidence also to show that they were ancestral properties received by Ramasami from his father or grandfather. Therefore, the property in Item Nos.5 to 13 and 15 to 17 and 19 to 21 were to be treated as Ramasami's separate property and not as joint family properties.
33.Further, we have noticed that the properties in the plaint schedule item Nos.1 to 4 and 18 were purchased by Natesan (D1) from various persons through the sale deeds, it is evidenced by Exs.B6 to B9 & B10, which are as follows:
1.Ex.B6-Item No.1 – purchased by Natesan (D1) in Survey No.196/4 measuring an extent of 0.40 cents by way of sale deed dated 13.12.1980.
2.Ex.B7-Item No.2 – purchased by Natesan (D1) in Survey No.178/4 measuring an extent of 0.52 cents by way of sale deed dated 12.04.1983.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 33/44 A.S.No.71 of 2014 and Cross objection No.95 of 2015
3.Ex.B8-Item No.3 – purchased by Natesan (D1) in Survey No.195/1 measuring an extent of 1.55 acres by way of sale deed dated 10.08.1988.
4.Ex.B9-Item No.4 – purchased by Natesan (D1) in Survey No.195/2 measuring an extent of 1.93 acres by way of sale deed dated 24.05.1993.
5.Ex.B10-Item No.18 – purchased by Natesan (D1) in Survey No.231 measuring an extent of 1.19 acres by way of sale deed dated 13.11.1995.
34.Further, we have noticed that item No.14 of the plaint schedule properties is not Ramasami's family properties and no evidence has been produced to this effect. It was alleged by the defendants that the property stands in the name of his wife Jayalalitha and purchased by her out of her own fund. It was not disputed by the plaintiffs only stated that it was also purchased through the income of the joint family properties.
35.The Hindu law upon this aspects of the case is well settled. Proof of the existence of the joint family does not lead to the presumption that property held by any member of the family is joint and the burden rest upon any one ascertaining that any item of the properties is joint to establish the fact. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 34/44 A.S.No.71 of 2014 and Cross objection No.95 of 2015
36.In this case, the plaintiffs have not lead any evidence to show that Ramasami had received any property from his father or from his grandfather. Only evidence is Ex.A1 settlement deed dated 15.03.1928 in favour of Ramasami executed by Rengasami Gounder it is Item No.17 of the plaint schedule properties in survey No.230/5 measuring an extent of 1.64 cents, this property stands in his name it should be treated as his separate property.
37. Now, we have considered the issue whether on oral partition plaint schedule item Nos.15 to 17 of Ramasami's properties were given to Natesan (D1) in the year 1977.
The learned counsel for appellants/defendants 1 & 4 contended that Ramasami intended to bring out a partition as plaintiffs 1 to 3 and the second defendant are his concubine sons. Accordingly, he effected an oral partition in the year 1977, in which, he had given plaint schedule properties item Nos.15, 16 & 17 to the Natesan (D1), which was acknowledged by father Ramasami and the first plaintiff Pachai(P1) and Munusamy (P2), in a statement given to The Tindivanam Cooperative Land Development Bank on 30.03.1977 for https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 35/44 A.S.No.71 of 2014 and Cross objection No.95 of 2015 enabling the first defendant to get a loan from the bank, the document is evidenced by Ex.B3 as well as Kandasamy (P3) and Natesan (D1) and Rajendiran (D2) also acknowledged the abovesaid oral partition in their statement to the same bank on 09.10.1995 for enabling the first defendant for getting a loan, which is marked as Ex.B4. On the same date, for enabling the first plaintiff Pachai(P1) for getting a loan from the same bank, Munusamy (P2), Kandasamy (P3), Rajendiran (D2) and Natesan (D1) gave a same statement to the bank, in which, acknowledged the oral partition and the plaint schedule properties Item Nos.19, 20 & 21 were given to Pachai (P1). This document is marked as Ex.B5. Further, the revenue receipts issued in favour of the first defendant Natesan marked as Exs.B20 to B26.
38.The learned counsel for the plaintiffs/respondents contended that the documents Exs.B3, B4 and B5 are a statement given to the Tindivanam Cooperative Land Development Bank only for the purpose of getting loan, not acknowledging the oral partition. Further, contended that in the document Exs.B3, B4 & B5, it is stated that a partition had happened 20 years back, it will come 1975. But subsequent to the year 1975, the alleged suit items of the properties item Nos.19, 20, & 21 were purchased by Ramasami. It was not https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 36/44 A.S.No.71 of 2014 and Cross objection No.95 of 2015 purchased before 1975. It is evidenced by Exs.A3, A4 & A5. Therefore, the properties purchased after 1975 would not have been orally allotted to the first plaintiff Pachai. The plea of oral partition itself prima facie shows that the oral partition is a shame and nominal for the purpose of getting loan, therefore, to hold that the oral partition reliance cannot be placed upon the documents Exs.B3 to B5 and thus, resisted the defence of oral partition.
39.We have considered the submission of the learned counsel for the parties in this regard.
In the written statement para – 4, the defendant specifically pleaded that the oral partition was effected in the year 1977. Immediately, we perused the documents Exs.B3, B4 & B5. Ex.B3 is a xerox copy of the statement given by father Ramasami along with Pachai (P1) and Munusamy (P2) to the Tindivanam Cooperative Land Development Bank on 30.03.1977, in which, a statement was given to the effect that in a oral partition, properties in survey No.230/3, 1.00 acre, 214/4C2 0.35 cents and 230/5 1.64 cents were given to Natesan (D1)'s share two years before the date of the statement and also further stated that the patta also changed in the name of Natesan(D1). The survey https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 37/44 A.S.No.71 of 2014 and Cross objection No.95 of 2015 numbers mentioned in the statement are covering the plaint schedule properties item Nos.15, 16 & 17. The truthfulness of the documents are checked with the patta filed by the defendant Ex.B19. Ex.B19 is the “A” register copy of the revenue records dated 07.01.2010. On perusal of Ex.B19, “A” register pertaining to the properties in survey Nos.230/3 1.00 acre, 214/4C2 0.35 cents and 230/5 1.64 cents relevant to the plaint schedule item Nos. 15, 16 & 17. The patta stands as on date in the name of their father Ramasami. It reveals to the fact that the patta has been transferred in the name of Natesan (D1) is falsified by Ex.B19. Prima facie shows that the statement Ex.B3 was given only for the purpose of getting loan as well as Exs.B4 & B5 also in the same manner statement given to the bank for getting the loan. Further, apart from these three documents, there is no evidence to support the defendant's case to show that the oral partition had effected in the year 1977 and the plaint schedule item Nos. 15, 16 & 17 were allotted to Natesan (D1).
40.The oral partition was recognised before the enactment of Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005. Now, oral partition cannot be accepted as statutorily as recognised mode of partition under Section 6(5) explanation. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vineeta Sharama Vs.Rakesh Sharma and others https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 38/44 A.S.No.71 of 2014 and Cross objection No.95 of 2015 reported in (2020) 9 Supreme Court Cases 1 observed that in expectational cases where plea of oral partition is supported by public documents and partition is finally evinced in the same manner as if it had been effected by a decree of Court, it may be accepted. Therefore, the plea of oral partition cannot be readily accepted. The Court has to be very extremely careful in accepting the same and only if very cogent, impeccable and contemporaneous documentary evidence in shape of public documents in support is available, such a plea may be entertained, but not otherwise.
41.In this case, there is no documentary evidence or other public documents to show that the properties were orally partitioned in the year 1977 and the defendants enjoyed it separately. Apart from this, the document Ex.B19 reflects the fact that the properties in item Nos.15, 16 & 17 remaining in the name of Ramasami. The revenue records are not changed and continued in the name of Ramasami. If the oral partition is true and the defendant would have been transferred in the name of Natesan (D1). But unfortunately, there is no revenue documents, in other public documents to show that the properties in item Nos.15, 16 & 17 are changed to the name of Natesan (D1). From the year 1977, there is no evidence for changing of name of title and enjoyment in favour of the defendants. Still it is continued in the name of father Ramasami. Under https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 39/44 A.S.No.71 of 2014 and Cross objection No.95 of 2015 such circumstances, we are unable to place reliance upon the documents Exs.B3, B4 & B5. The arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants/defendants in this regard is rejected. Thus, we confined the finding of the trial Court in this regard and answered the issue against the defendants/appellants.
42.The plaint schedule properties Item Nos.1 to 4 and 18 were purchased by Natesan (D1) by sale deeds evidenced by Exs.B6, B7, B8, B9 and B10 as stated above.
43.We have noticed from the evidence that there was no ancestral property of Ramasami, no nucleus upon ancestral properties was available with Ramasami to purchase the plaint schedule properties as stated above. Therefore, the plaintiffs failure to lead evidence to establish that Ramasamy had ancestral properties and was yielding any income or that nucleus was available with the aid whereof the plaint schedule properties could be purchased by Ramasami and Natesan (D1). The plaintiffs claim that all the plaint schedule properties are joint family properties failed.
44.In view of the aforesaid discussions, the plaintiffs/respondents having failed to discharge the initial burden of establishing that there was any nucleus https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 40/44 A.S.No.71 of 2014 and Cross objection No.95 of 2015 in the form of any income whatsoever from item No.17 of the plaint schedule properties (Ramasamy by way of settlement), the burden remained on the plaintiffs to establish that item Nos.1 to 4, 18 & 14 of the plaint schedule properties were joint family properties. In this view, the fact that the defendants has not let any evidence to establish his separate income is of no consequence. Therefore, the finding of the trial Court in this aspect is hereby set aside and we hold that item Nos.5 to 13, 15 to 17, 19 to 21 are the separate property of Ramasami and the properties item Nos.1 to 4 and 18 are the separate properties of Natesan (D1) and item No.14 of the plaint schedule properties of the first defendant Natesan's wife Jayalalitha. Therefore, the separate property of Natesan (D1), viz., Item Nos. 1 to 4, 18 and the separate property of Jayalalitha, wife of Natesan (D1), item No.14 the plaintiffs have no right to claim any share. Therefore, the suit with regard to these items of the plaint schedule properties is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the finding of the trial Court in this aspect is hereby set aside.
45.Therefore, in view of the above, the remaining properties of Ramasami viz., item Nos.5 to 13, 15 to 17, 19 to 21 alone, the plaintiffs and the defendants are entitled to claim share. Ramasami died intestate in the year https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 41/44 A.S.No.71 of 2014 and Cross objection No.95 of 2015 1983 is admitted fact. Ramasami's legal heirs are two wives Pachaiammal (D3) and Janakiammal (P4) and their children viz., Natesan (D1), Muniammal (D4), Pachai (P1), Munusamy (P2), Kandasamy (P3), Annapoorani (P5), Pavunu (P6), Savithiri (P7) and Rajendiran (D2), among these legal heirs, Pachaiammal (D3) died is the admitted fact. Her legal heirs Natesan (D1), Muniammal (D4) and the second wife Janakiammal is alive. Her son Pachai (P1) died and his legal heirs viz., Manoranjitham (P8), Srinivasan (P9) and Seethalakshmi (P10) are on record. Therefore, Ramasami's legal heirs Janakiammal (P4), Natesan (D1), Muniammal (D3), Pachai (P1), Munusamy (P2), Kandasamy (P3), Annapoorani (P5), Pavunu (P6), Savithiri (P7) and Rajendiran (D2) are each entitled to 1/10 share, since Pachai (P1) died his 1/10 share will go to his legal heirs viz. P8 to P10. Therefore, to this effect, the plaintiffs are entitled for preliminary decree. The judgment and decree of the trial Court, in this regard is hereby set aside.
In the result, the appeal suit and the cross objections are partly allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition, if any, is closed.
Index/Internet: Yes / No [M.K.K.S, J] [V.S.G., J]
Speaking order: Yes/No 29.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
42/44
A.S.No.71 of 2014 and Cross objection No.95 of 2015 sms To
1. The 1st Additional District Judge, Tindivanam.
2. The Section Officer, VR Section High Court, Madras. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 43/44 A.S.No.71 of 2014 and Cross objection No.95 of 2015 K.KALYANASUNDARAM, J.
and V.SIVAGNANAM, J.
sms Pre-delivery judgment made in A.S.No.71 of 2014 & Cross Objection No.95 of 2015 29.04.2022 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 44/44