Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

12.1. The issue in the suit revolves around 880 sq.ft of land, which was allotted to one C.Ponnan by the TNSCB. After his death, the TNSCB executed a Sale Deed in favour of his wife Kathayee Ammal and got it registered on 05.08.2005. The allotment was made in the year 1983 and the death of Ponnan was on 01.03.1998. Thereafter, the sale was effected in the year 2005. It is the case of the first plaintiff that the defendant is not born to her parents, namely, Ponnan and Kathayee Ammal, but he is the son born to one Maari and Kannamma. On his own imagination, he called himself that he was born to Ponnan and Kathayee Ammal. It is the admitted case of the first plaintiff that the defendant http://www.judis.nic.in  C.S.No.562 of 2011 & T.O.S. Nos.13 of 2015 & 25 of 2017 was allowed to be in possession of 380 sq.ft. even during the life time of her father. The first plaintiff has produced the death certificate of Ponnan and also the legal heirship certificate of Ponnan dated 20.06.2000, which is marked as Ex.P.-5. A perusal of the legal heirship certificate in Dis/C4/18004/2000 reveals that the same was issued by the Tahsildar, Egmore - Nungambakkam Taluk, Chennai, in which, Kathayee Ammal is described as his wife and the Kuppammal- the first plaintiff is described as daughter. The name of the defendant does not find a place in the said legal heirship certificate. There is no reason given by the defendant for not including his name as legal heir of deceased Ponnan. If not the plaintiff at least, the mother Kathayee Ammal would not have given up her own son, as alleged by the defendant. The defendant also had not bothered about it and allowed Kathayee Ammal to complete the payment of installements and take the sale deed in her favour. On 02.05.2006, Kathayee Ammal, wife of Ponnan died. Once again, the first plaintiff Kuppammal had obtained the legal heirship certificate in Ne.Mu.E4/18489/2011 issued by the Tahsildar, Egmore-Nungambakkam. In the said legal heirship certificate also, only Kuppammal was shown to be the sole heir to the deceased Kathayee Ammal. The defendant had also produced the legal heirship certificate dated 06.07.2006, wherein, Kuppammal, the first plaintiff http://www.judis.nic.in  C.S.No.562 of 2011 & T.O.S. Nos.13 of 2015 & 25 of 2017 and the Kesavan, the defendant are shown as legal heirs and it is also mentioned that Tmt.Kathayee Ammal died as early as on 02.05.2006.

13. The defendant/plaintiffs in T.O.S.No.13 of 2015 has produced the Will dated 03.09.1997 marked as Ex.D.8. The said Will is registered as Document No.126 of 1997 before the Sub Registrar Office, Kodambakkam. As per the said Will, Ponnan, who is the father of Kuppammal / the first plaintiff had been alleged to have executed the Will in favour of the defendant Kesavan as well as the first plaintiff Kuppammal. In the said Will, Ponnan's wife Kathayee Ammal is given the life interest and thereafter, A Schedule was given to P.Kesavan/the defendant and B Schedule was given in favour of P.Kuppammal/the first plaintiff absolutely. The Testator of the Will dated 03.09.1997 died on 01.03.1998. On his death, the alleged Will ought to have come into http://www.judis.nic.in  C.S.No.562 of 2011 & T.O.S. Nos.13 of 2015 & 25 of 2017 force. The property mentioned in the Will is the one, which was allotted in his name by the TNSCB. While he was paying the monthly installments, he died. Thereafter, his wife Kathayee Ammal paid the balance of the installments and obtained the sale deed from the TNSCB on 05.08.2005 under Ex.P.3. To obtain the sale deed Kathayee Ammal had produced the legal heir certificate-Ex.P.5, as per which, Kathayee Ammal and the first plaintiff - Kuppammal alone were shown as legal heirs of the deceased Ponnan. Based on the same, the TNSCB had executed the sale deed in favour of the Kathayee Ammal on 05.08.2005. If really the deceased Ponnan had executed a Will in favour of the defendant and when the said Ponnan died on 01.03.1998, he would have taken steps to get the sale deed registered in his favour, as indicated in the Will. But the defendant had not taken any steps to either probate the Will or claim his half share as per the Will. He had only produced the said Will as a counter-blast for the suit, when the plaintiff had claimed title to the same. Whether the said Will is true and genuine or not had to be decided in the manner known to law.

15. As discussed earlier, the Ponnan was the original allottee of the suit property by the TNSCB as per the Chennai Metropolitan Development Scheme. After his death on 01.03.1998, at the request of his wife Kathayee Ammal, on production of the required documents, the allotment was transferred in her name. After the date of transfer, i.e., from 21.10.2000, which is evidenced by the memo issued by the TNSCB as per Ex.P.2, the said Kathayee Ammal was paying the further installments. Once the installments were paid, the sale deed was executed by the TNSCB in favour of Kathayee Ammal on 05.08.2005. http://www.judis.nic.in  C.S.No.562 of 2011 & T.O.S. Nos.13 of 2015 & 25 of 2017 The case of the defendant is that the said Ponnan had bequeathed the suit property equally between himself and the first plaintiff. The said Ponnan died in the year 1998, on which date, the installments of the sale consideration was not paid in full and the said Ponnan had not become the owner of the property. Admittedly, on the death of the Ponnan, Kathayee Ammal, who is his wife, had got the allotment transferred in her name and completed the payment of installments towards the sale consideration. Thereafter, on 05.08.2005, the TNSCB had executed the sale deed in her favour. Therefore, on the date when the Will under Ex.D.8 was executed, Ponnan was not the owner of the property, as the ownership continued only with the TNSCB. A reading of the Will also says that “vd; bgaUf;F xJf;fPL fpilf;fbgw;Wk; md;WKjy; ehd; vd;Dila mDgtj;jpy;. jkpH;ehL FoirgFjp khw;W thhpaj;jpw;F brYj;j ntz;oa kid thp tifawhf;fis ghf;fp ,d;wp brYj;jpf;bfhz;Lk;. Foir tPl;oid ehd; vd;Dila brhe;j brytpy; mikj;Jf;bfhz;Lk; ....”. Therefore, it is only the allotment, that was alone made, in favour of the said Ponnan. When the Testator himself did not have absolute right over the suit property, he could not have executed the Will, as alleged by the defendant and even he executed such a Will, the same is invalid in the eye of law. http://www.judis.nic.in  C.S.No.562 of 2011 & T.O.S. Nos.13 of 2015 & 25 of 2017

Ex.D.1 - 25.03.1977 - Passbook of TNSCB Ex.D.2 - 06.07.2006 - Legal Heir Certificate of Ponnan Ex.D.3 - 03.11.1995 - TNSCB Receipt Ex.D.4 - 30.06.1980 - TC of the defendant Ex.D.5 - 09.09.1996 - Community Certificate of the defendant Ex.D.6 - 02.03.1998 - Burial Certificate of Ponnan Ex.D.7 - 31.01.2007 - Judgment in O.S.No.2813/2000 Ex.D.8 - 03.09.1997 - Will 18.11.2019 http://www.judis.nic.in  C.S.No.562 of 2011 & T.O.S. Nos.13 of 2015 & 25 of 2017 PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J.