Madras High Court
Mathivanan vs Deivanai (Died)
Author: N.Sathish Kumar
Bench: N.Sathish Kumar
A.S.(MD)No.297 of 2008
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
RESERVED ON : 17.03.2023
DELIVERED ON : 29.03.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
A.S.(MD)No.297 of 2008
Mathivanan ... Appellant
Vs.
1.Deivanai (Died)
(Memo dated 09.12.2022 in USR No.35412
in recorded, as R1 died and the sole appellant,
who is already on record, is recorded as LRs of
the deceased R1 vide Court order dated 14.12.2022
made in A.S.(MD)No.297/2008)
2.Rathinathammal (Died)
3.Chinniyan
4.Sivabagyam
5.Saravanan (Died)
6.Rajammal (Died)
7.Thambuchami (Died)
8.Samikannu
1/24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.(MD)No.297 of 2008
9.Meenakshi
(9th respondent brought on record as LR of the
deceased 2nd respondent vide Court order dated
08.12.2022 made in C.M.P.(MD)No.9592 of 2022)
10.Periyathangachi (died)
(Memo presented before the Court on 14.09.2022
is recorded as 10th respondent died and the respondents
11 to 14 who are already on record, are recorded as
LRs of the deceased R10 vide Court order dated 14.09.2022
made in C.M.P.(MD)No.6117 of 2022)
11.S.Balasubramanian
12.S.Kesavan
13.S.Gunasekaran
14.Palaniammal
(Respondents 10 to 14 are brought on record as LRs of
the deceased 5th respondent vide Court order dated
08.12.2022 made in C.M.P.(MD)No.9594/2022)
15.V.Kannan
(15th respondent is brought on record as LR of the
deceased R6 vide Court order dated 02.202.2023 made
in C.M.P.(MD)Nos.1172 & 1156 of 2023)
16.Vedhavalli
17.T.Natarajan
18.T.Gopal
19.P.Selvarani
(Respondents 16 to 19 are brought on record as
LRs of the deceased R7 vide Court order dated
14.12.2022 made in C.M.P.(MD)No.12337 of 2022) ... Respondents
2/24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.(MD)No.297 of 2008
PRAYER: This Appeal Suit is filed under Section 96 of C.P.C. against the
judgment and decree of the learned Sub Judge, Pattukottai, dated 14.02.1991 made
in O.S.No.55 of 1987.
For Appellant : Mr.P.Thiagarajan
For Respondents : Mr.V.K.Vijayaraghavan
for R3, R8, R9, R11 to R19
JUDGMENT
Aggrieved over the dismissal of the suit in respect of 'A' schedule property and item Nos.1 and 2 of 'B' schedule property, the plaintiff has filed the present appeal.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to herein, as per their rank before the Trial Court.
3. The brief facts, leading to the filing of this Appeal, are as follows:-
3.1. The suit properties are joint family property of the plaintiff's father consisting of the plaintiff and his father one Singaram. The first defendant is the mother of the plaintiff and the wife of the said Singaram. Second defendant is the mother of Singaram i.e., paternal grandmother of the plaintiff. Defendants 3 and 4 3/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.(MD)No.297 of 2008 are purchaser of the 'A' schedule properties. Defendants 5 to 9 were impleaded as legal heirs of the third defendant in the suit. It is the case of the plaintiff that his father Singaram was addicted to alcohol and he was leading a wayward life. He never cared for the welfare of the plaintiff, who was minor at that time. The plaintiff was always under the care of his mother, the first defendant. Second defendant remarried one Sabapathy, after the death of his husband and left the joint family. Second defendant is living with her husband Sabapathy and also having a daughter by name Meenakshi through the said Sabapathy. According to the plaintiff, the second defendant is not entitled to any interest in the suit properties.
3.2. The first defendant, mother of the plaintiff was an illiterate. After the death of the plaintiff's father, the properties were looked after by one Chellan Amabalam, who is the father of the second defendant. The income from the joint family properties are sufficient enough for the maintenance of the joint family.
There was no necessity at all to alienate any of the joint family properties.
3.3. It is the case of the plaintiff that the third defendant, taking advantage of the reckless life led by the father of the plaintiff, registered a sale deed in his 4/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.(MD)No.297 of 2008 favour in respect of portion of 'A' schedule properties without any consideration. There was no necessity for the plaintiff's father to sell the portion of 'A' schedule properties to the third defendant. At any event, the sale is not for any legal necessity. Therefore, the same is not binding on the plaintiff. Similarly, after the death of the plaintiff's father, the plaintiff was under the custody of his mother, first defendant. Taking advantage of the illiteracy of the first defendant, the 4th defendant also registered a sale deed in his favour in respect of a portion of 'A' schedule properties by the first defendant. The above sale is also without consideration. There was no necessity for the first defendant to sell the suit property to the fourth defendant. Therefore, the said sale is also not binding on the plaintiff. Besides, there was no permission obtained under Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act. Therefore, the present suit has been filed within three years, after the plaintiff attained majority for setting aside the sales in favour of the third respondent and fourth defendant and also claiming 3/4th share in the 'B' schedule properties.
4. The first defendant-mother of the plaintiff was remained ex parte. Second defendant, paternal grandmother of the plaintiff filed a written statement denying the contentions of the plaintiff. It is the case of the second defendant that 5/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.(MD)No.297 of 2008 the father of the plaintiff was never addicted to alcohol and never led any wayward life. Since he has sustained loss in agriculture, he has borrowed certain debts viz., on 13.07.1964 by way of mortgage for a sum of Rs.1,000/-, on 24.04.1966 by way of pro-note for a sum of Rs.1,000/- and also on 02.05.1966 by way of pro-note for a sum of Rs.1,000/-, Similarly, he has borrowed another three hundred rupees from one Veerappan on 11.07.1966, totally he has borrowed a sum of Rs.3,300/- from various persons. In order to clear the above said antecedent debts, the first defendant and second defendant together executed a sale deed in favour of the fourth defendant on 17.03.1969. Similarly, the plaintiff's father has also executed a sale deed in favour of the third defendant. The plaintiff was also made as eo- nominee party in the said sale deed. She has also denied the remarriage with one Sabapathy. Further, it is stated that since her husband died, she lived with the said Sabapathy and begot child. Hence, it is her contention that the sale deeds executed by the father of the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 in favour of the defendants 3 and 4 are valid and she is also in possession of the property and she is also entitled to share because she is also in adverse possession. It is her further contention that the suit is barred by limitation.
6/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.(MD)No.297 of 2008
5. Defendants 3 and 4 filed a written statement in supporting the case of the second defendant. It is their contentions that they have purchased the property for valuable consideration and the sale has been made only in order to clear the antecedent debts of the family. It is their contention that the suit is barred by limitation as the suit has been filed after three years of attaining the majority of the plaintiff. The defendants 5 to 9 is also adopted the statement of the defendants 3 and 4.
6. Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court has framed the following issues:
“1.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to 3/4th share in the suit property?
2.Whether the sale deeds executed by the plaintiff's father Singaram and defendants 1 and 2 are valid and binding on the plaintiff?
3.Whether the 4th defendant is entitled to share in the property?
4.Whether the suit is barred by limitation?
5.Whether the sale deeds dated 23.01.1967 and 17.03.1969 to be set aside and whether those sale deeds are binding on the plaintiff's share?
6. To what other reliefs the plaintiff is entitled?” 7/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.(MD)No.297 of 2008
7. Based on the above pleadings and evidence and also considering all the documents produced by the plaintiff including the SSLC certificate, the trial Court has found that the suit is barred by limitation and granted 2/3 rd share in respect of item Nos.3 to 5 in the 'B' schedule property to the plaintiff and 1/6th share to the second defendant. Aggrieved over the same, the present appeal came to be filed.
8. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff / appellant before this Court is that the plaintiff's father one Singaram was died in his young age. P.W.2 was examined to show that the father of the plaintiff was addicted to alcohol and leading wayward life. Therefore, any sale deed executed by the plaintiff's father in favour of the third defendant as per ExA1 on 23.01.1967 is not binding on the plaintiff, since it has not been executed for any family necessity. It is his further contention that under Ex.A2, defendants 1 and 2 also executed the sale deed in favour of the 4th defendant, which is also not for any family necessity. Hence, it is his contention that though the plaintiff was made as eo-nominee party, both the sale deeds are not binding on the plaintiff as there was no legal necessity for sale of property.
8/24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.(MD)No.297 of 2008
9. It is the further contention of the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff / appellant that the SSLC mark sheet has been field to prove the age of the plaintiff, the same clearly proves the fact that the plaintiff has attained the majority only in the year 1984 and the suit has been filed within a period of three years i.e., on 11.05.1987. Whereas the trial Court disbelieving the SSLC mark sheet, dismissed the suit. Hence, it is his contention that the trial Court has not even gone into other aspects as to whether there is a legal necessity or not to sell the property. Hence, it is his contention that the plaintiff, after attaining the majority, has filed the suit to avoid the sale within a period of three years. The purchaser has to show that there was a legal necessity to execute the sale deed. The defendants / respondents have not discharged their burden. It is his contention that second defendant is already remarried and therefore, she is not entitled to share in the property. The trial Court has not gone into these aspects and hence, prays for allowing the appeal.
10. The learned counsel appearing for the defendants / respondent would submit that the plaintiff has filed a suit beyond the period of three years. The age mentioned in the SSLC mark sheet cannot given much importance. It is his contention that the very Ex.A1 and Ex.B2 sale deed dated 23.01.1967 makes it 9/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.(MD)No.297 of 2008 very clear that plaintiff was made as a eo-nominee party. The sale has been executed by the father on behalf of the minor. In the above said sale deed, the age of the minor has been mentioned as two years. Therefore, the subsequent mark sheet will not have any evidenciary value to prove the age. The father himself has given a correct age at the time of executing the sale deed in the year 1967 and the same is relevant to prove the age of the son. Therefore, it is his submission that the trial Court has rightly found that the suit is filed beyond the period of three years. It is his further submission that the first defendant being the mother, who is a best person to prove the age of her son. However, she was remained ex-parte for the reasons best known to her. Hence, submitted that the suit is barred by limitation.
11. It is the further contention of the learned counsel appearing for the defendants / respondents that the second defendant is the mother of the said Singaram, who is the father of the plaintiff. In her evidence, she has clearly stated that Singaram was never addicted to alcohol and led any immoral or wayward life. She has also given the evidence to the effect that ancestral properties were sold only to clear the family debts. The recitals in the documents itself clearly show that the sale has been effected only to clear the revenue dues to the Government 10/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.(MD)No.297 of 2008 and also the antecedents debts. Hence, it is his contention that the sale has been made only for the legal necessity. Being the Karta of the joint family, he is entitled to sell the property for the legal necessity. There was no requirements to obtain permission under Section 8 of Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act since, it is not the absolute property of the minor. Hence, it is his contention that when the mother of Singaram herself has examined before the Court and she has clearly stated about the legal necessity, which resulted in a sale, merely on the basis of the evidence of P.W.2, it cannot be assumed that Singaram was in fact leading immoral life and addicted to alcohol. Hence, submitted that the suit is nothing but a speculative one to avoid transaction which had happened long back. In support of his submission, he has also relied upon the following judgments of this Court:
(i) Ilavarasi Ramanathan Vs. Mehamala reported in 2018-5-L.W.716; and
(ii) S.Swaminathan & another Vs. R.Jayalakshmi (Deceased) & others reported in 2020-1-L.W.69.
12. In the light of the above submissions, now the points arise for consideration in this Appeal Suit are as follows:
1. Whether the suit has been filed within the period of three years after the plaintiff attained majority?
11/24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.(MD)No.297 of 2008
2. Whether the sale deeds executed in favour of defendant Nos.3 and 4 are not binding on the plaintiff?
3. Whether the sale deeds are not executed due to the legal necessity as alleged by the plaintiff?
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to partition in all the suit properties? POINT NO:1
13. The suit has been filed to avoid the sale deeds executed by the father, the mother and grandmother under Exs.A1, A2, B2 and B4. It is the contention of the plaintiff that his father Singaram was leading a wayward life and addicted to alcohol and there was no legal necessity to sell the property, since the family had a sufficient income from the properties. It is relevant to note that in Exs.A1 and B2, the plaintiff's father has executed a sale deed not only in respect of his share, but also on behalf of the minor child viz., the plaintiff. The plaintiff was made as eo- nominee party in the sale deed. The recitals in the document clearly shows that the property was sold for a sum of Rs.1,500/- in order to clear the family debts. The plaintiff has relied upon the evidence of P.W.2, to show that his father was addicted to alcohol and he was also involved in gambling. It is relevant to note 12/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.(MD)No.297 of 2008 that the mother of the said Singaram, second defendant in her evidence and pleadings denied the allegation of the plaintiff that the said Singaram was leading a wayward life and therefore, he sold the property. It is relevant to note that the second defendant being the mother is a competent witness to speak about her son's life. In fact, she has clearly stated in her evidence that his son was neither addicted to alcohol nor involved in any gambling and it is asserted that the property has been sold to clear the family debts, which is also substantiated by the recitals in Ex.A1. The recitals of Ex.A1 clearly show that in order to clear the family debts, the property has been sold for a sum of Rs.1,500/-.
14. It is further to be noted that the first defendant, being the wife of the said Singaram, is also another competent person to speak about the conduct of her husband, however, she was conveniently remained ex-parte. The conduct of the first defendant remained ex-parte also cannot be ignored altogether. Therefore, this Court is of the view that when the mother, who is the competent person, has spoken about the conduct of her son, there was no reason to disbelieve her evidence. This Court carefully analyzed the evidence of P.W.2, who is claiming to be a relative of the plaintiff. In his evidence, he has stated that Singaram died at the age of 27 years. His evidence is also runs contrary to the very admission made 13/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.(MD)No.297 of 2008 by the plaintiff in his chief examination, wherein, the plaintiff has stated that her father was aged about 40 to 45 years at the time of his death. Further, the evidences of P.Ws.1 and 2 also do not prove the fact that his father was addicted to alcohol. No proceedings have been initiated against him at the relevant point of time. It is relevant to note that in the year 1960 to 1970, the prohibition was in force. Any person involved in drinking in public place, they would be proceeded under the Prohibition Act. Therefore, merely on the basis of the oral evidence of P.W.2, this Court is not in a position to accept his evidence that the father of the plaintiff was addicted to alcohol and leading a wayward life.
15. The suit has been filed on 11.05.1987. Much reliance have been placed on the SSLC mark sheet filed during the re-examination to show that the suit was filed within a period of three years. It is relevant to note that Ex.A1 sale deed executed in the year 1967. The plaintiff was also made as eo-nominee party. His father has in fact mentioned the age of the plaintiff as two years. Such statement as to the age is irrelevant and the same it cannot be ignored altogether. It is relevant to note that an entry with regard to the affairs of the family and age of the any particulars mentioned in the document by any of the family members are relevant, the same cannot be ignored altogether. Therefore, merely on the basis of 14/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.(MD)No.297 of 2008 the age mentioned in the mark sheet, the same cannot be conclusive one without any corroboration by other documents such as Birth certificate etc., Hence, the age mentioned in the SSLC mark sheet cannot be given much importance, particularly when the statement of the parents is very much available in the document showing the different age of the plaintiff.
16. It is further to be noted that the plaintiff's mother is the competent witness to speak about date of birth of his son. She never chosen to enter into witness box. Though she remained ex-parte, plaintiff could have examined her as witness. It is also not done so. Therefore, this Court is the view that the age referred in SSLC mark sheet alone is not a determinative factor to decide the age of the plaintiff. Whereas, the registered document executed by the father of the plaintiff in the year 1967, Exs.A1 and B2 clearly show that in the year 1967 itself the plaintiff was aged about two years and therefore, he would have born only in the year 1965 and he would have attained the majority in the year 1983. Hence, the suit ought to have been filed in the year 1986 itself, however, the suit has been filed only on 11.05.1987. To avoid any sale deed executed by his father being the Manager of Hindu Joint family, particularly when the plaintiff was also made as eo-nominee party, the suit ought to have been filed within three years from the 15/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.(MD)No.297 of 2008 date of plaintiff attaining majority. Whereas in this case, suit has been filed beyond the 3 years period. Hence it is barred by limitation.
POINT NOS.2 AND 3.
17. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that the sale deed-Ex.A1 executed in favour of the third defendant and the sale deed-Ex.A2 executed in favour of the fourth defendant are not supported by any consideration and the sales have not been made for any legal necessity. On perusal of Ex.A1,clearly shows that the same has been executed for clearing the family debts. It is further to be noted that after the death of the plaintiff's father, the mother-first defendant being the natural guardian and the second defendant paternal grandmother of the plaintiff also sold some portion of the property to the fourth defendant under Exs.A2 and B4, dated 17.03.1969, wherein the plaintiff has also made as eo-nominee party. On a perusal of the recitals of Ex.A2 clearly show that the property has been sold for a sum of Rs.3,300/- to clear the mortgage debts and pro-note, debts which was borrowed for the family necessity. Ex.B4 clearly spelt out the nature of the amount borrowed for the family necessity, which has been clearly spoken by D.W.1 in her evidence. All the particulars of the date is also mentioned in Ex.A4. 16/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.(MD)No.297 of 2008
18. It is relevant to note that Ex.B3 is the mortgage deed executed in the year 1964 for a sum of Rs.1,000/- by Singaram. Wherein, the recitals also clearly show that the amount is borrowed only for the family expenses and to purchase the cattle and also for the purpose of agricultural expenses. Ex.B4, wherein the first defendant, mother of the plaintiff and the second defendant grandmother of the plaintiff have executed the sale deed in favour of the fourth defendant for a sum of Rs.3,300/-, wherein it is clearly mentioned that the sale has been made in order to clear the antecedent debts i.e., mortgage debt under Ex.B3 and other debts which are borrowed for family necessity by the said Singaram. Therefore, when the mother and the wife of the Singaram have acknowledged the family debts and also executed a sale deed on behalf of the minor to clear the antecedent debts, it cannot be said that there was no family necessity for the sale of the property. When the antecedent debts have been established and admitted by mother and grandmother of the plaintiff to clear such antecedent debts any sale made by them is valid and could be construed only for legal necessity. D.W.1, the mother of the said Singaram in her evidence also clearly spoken about the antecedent debts of the family and in cross examination, once the antecedent debts have been clearly established and the sale was made only for clearing the antecedent debts, it cannot be said that the sale is not binding. Though the burden is on the alienee to show 17/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.(MD)No.297 of 2008 that alienation was made either for antecedent debts or for any legal necessity, it is not necessary for the alienee to show every bit of consideration, which have been made actually for meeting out the legal necessity.
19. Here in this case, D.W.1, the second defendant, who is mother of the said Singaram along with the first defendant, mother of the plaintiff have executed a sale deed under Ex.B4, wherein she has clearly spoken about the discharge of antecedent debts and the same has been substantiated in her evidence also. Therefore, the existence of the antecedent debts have been clearly established.
20. In Rengan Ambalam and another Vs. Sheik Dawood and others reported in (2019) 6 SCC 399, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that “when there is a recital in the sale deed to clear and pay the antecedent debt and for legal necessity of the family members, the claim of the vendee has to be accepted and the minors are bound by the sale deed executed by their father during their minority.
21. In Ilavarasi Ramanathan Vs. Mehamala reported in 2018-5-L.W.716, the Division Bench of this Court has held as follows:
18/24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.(MD)No.297 of 2008 “31.Further, it is seen that before the trial Court, the children and the mother were represented by two different advocates. But, in this appeal before this Court, they are represented by one and the same counsel. Though the children filed the suit against their parents (defendants 1 & 2), the parents remained exparte in the connected appeal in A.S.No.78 of 2011 filed against the dismissal of the partition suit O.S.No.48 of 2008 filed by the children. From the above facts, it is clear that the suit in O.S.No.48 of 2008 filed by the children is frivolous suit filed at the instance of their parents. The parents of the children, who are parties behind the vexatious litigation, never chose to challenge the sale deed executed by them in favour of the 3rd defendant Mehamala on the ground that the sale is sham and nominal or the consideration paid thereunder is too low. In this regard, a reference could be placed in the decision reported in 1996 (2) MLJ 134 (Santanavenugopalakrishnan and others Vs. K.V.Venugopal and others), wherein a Division Bench of this Court has held as follows:-
"In passing, we have to reiterate that this is one of those usual litigations filed by the minor children in the joint family- attacking the alienations made by the father either during their minority or immediately thereafter but, certainly, with the encouragement and active support of the parents. Without the first and the second defendants having a hand in the litigation, the plaintiffs would not have dared or could not have been encouraged to file the same. The mother of some of the plaintiffs was representing some of the minors. What prevented her from going, into the box and speak against her husband remains unexplained.19/24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.(MD)No.297 of 2008 The appeal is dismissed. As the litigation, in our view, ought to have been sponsored by the parents and the minor plaintiffs ought not to be blamed for it, there will no order as to costs in this appeal. The appellants, however, will pay the Court-fee payable to the Government."
From the above decision, it is clear that the existence of antecedent debt, if proved as a necessity for selling the ancestral property by karta, then such sale is binding on the minor children. The vexatious litigation filed by father through his minor children challenging his own sale as 'suthradhari' of litigation by abusing the due process of law has to be deprecated. In the instant case, the father (1st defendant) has dealt with the subject property by settling the same in favour of his wife (2nd defendant) and thereafter, he made his wife to sell the property in favour of 3rd defendant Mehamala and thereafter, filed a suit for partition through his minor children by making their maternal grandfather as guardian, and deliberately remained exparte before the trial Court and also before this Court while contesting the other suit simultaneously. These facts would clearly show that the suit filed by the children at the instance of their parents is nothing but purely abuse of due process of law.”
22. In view of the above decisions, this Court is of the view that the appellant cannot assail the sale deed, particularly when he was minor at the time of executing the sale deed and the sale was executed only to clear the antecedent debts. Further, the second defendant, who is the grandmother of the plaintiff also 20/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.(MD)No.297 of 2008 clearly supported the case of the alienee that the sale is only for legal necessity. Accordingly, these points are answered.
POINT NO:4
23. The other contention of the plaintiff that the second defendant, who is the grandmother of the plaintiff has remarried after the death of his husband and therefore, she is not entitled to get any share in the suit properties, is not acceptable. It is relevant to note that prior to the omission of Section 24 of the Hindu Succession Act, this Section lays down a disqualification for succession against (i) the widow of a predeceased son, (ii) the widow of a predeceased son of a predeceased son (iii) the widow of a brother of a Hindu intestate, if such widow has remarried on the date when the succession opens. This section speaks of three categories of widows who will be disentitled to inherit if they were already remarried, who were otherwise entitled to inherit. This Section does not preclude any other widow from inheritance by reason of her remarriage prior to the opening of the succession. According to the plaintiff, the second defendant remarried prior to the death of his son viz., the father of the plaintiff. 21/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.(MD)No.297 of 2008
24. Such view of the matter, when there is no prohibition under the law to claim share along with the first defendant, who is the widow of the plaintiff's father, second defendant is also entitled to claim share from her son's share as class I legal heirs. Accordingly, this point is answered.
25. In the result, the decree and judgment dismissing the suit in respect of 'A' schedule property and item Nos.1 and 2 in the schedule 'B' property is confirmed and the preliminary decree granted in favour of the plaintiff in respect of other items is modified as follows:
“Since the first defendant died, the appellant is the only legal heir to the said first defendant and a memo was field to that effect and the same was recorded by this Court, by order dated 14.12.2022. such being a position, the shares allotted to first defendant are automatically go to the plaintiff being the son. Accordingly, the plaintiff is entitled to 5/6 shares in items 3 to 5 in 'B' schedule property and the second defendant is entitled to 1/6 share in items 3 to 5 in 'B' schedule property.” 22/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.(MD)No.297 of 2008
26. In view of the above, this Appeal Suit is partly allowed. No costs.
29.03.2023 NCC : Yes /No Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes vsm To
1.The Sub Judge, Pattukottai,
2.The Section Officer, Vernacular Records, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
23/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.(MD)No.297 of 2008 N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
vsm A.S.(MD)No.297 of 2008 29.03.2023 24/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis