Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. Plaintiff in O.S.No. 57 of 1990, on the file of Subordinate Judge, Tiruppur, is the first appellant.

2. Suit filed by her was one for partition claiming one- fifth share in the plaint schedule items and also to direct the defendants to put her in possession of the share so allotted. Consequent relief as to payment of profits was also sought for. She also prayed for costs of suit.

3. Material averments in the plaint may be summarised as follows:-

Plaintiff and defendants 1 to 4 are sisters, being daughters of late Appasami Naidu. All the schedule items belong to Appasami Naidu either ancestral or by purchase. He had no male issues. With a view to escape from the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961, and also to avoid surrendering surplus lands to the Government, Appasami Naidu brought about a partition deed dated 30.9.1970 between himself, plaintiff and defendants 1 to 4. Under this partition, Appasami Naidu purported to divide all his properties, treating them as joint properties of himself and his daughters. Separate schedule of properties were given regarding allotment to Appasami Naidu and all Ms daughters. Proceedings were initiated against late Appasami Naidu under the Land Reforms Act. Appasami Naidu contended that his holding was within the ceiling limits and that he had no property to surrender. This contention was not accepted by the Authorised Officer. As per his order dated 9.5.1974, the partition deed dated 30.9.1970 was held to be a void document, on the ground that it was brought about to defeat the provisions of the Act, and all the properties were treated as the properties of late Appasami Naidu. Appasami Naidu filed an appeal in Sub-Court, Coimbatore, in L.T.A.No. 270 of 1974, without any success. The appeal was dismissed on 20.2.1975. When revision was preferred before this Court in C.R.P.No. 1101 of 1975, which also met with the same fate. It is contended that as a result of the Order passed by the Authorised Officer, as confirmed by the Sub-Court and this Court, Appasami Naidu surrendered the excess land to the Government. The lands so surrendered were included in Survey Nos. 234, 235, 237/1 and 626/2. Shortly thereafter, Appasami Naidu died. It is said that at the time of his death, the schedule properties belonged to Appasami Naidu. He is survived by plaintiff and defendants 1 to 4 as his heirs, and they succeeded to the plaint schedule properties. There was no partition between plaintiff and defendants 1 to 4 after the death of Appasami Naidu. It is further averred that the partition deed dated 30.9.1970 was brought about by Appasami Naidu for a specific purpose of circumventing the provisions of the Land Ceiling Act, and it was never acted upon. It was also held to be inoperative by the Authorities under the Act. While surrendering the Lands, Appasami Naidu not only surrendered the properties allotted to his share but also surrendered the properties allotted to his daughters under the deed. According to the plaintiff, the partition deed dated 30.9.1970 is non-est, and the plaintiff ignores the same. It is further averred that the partition deed is not a transfer, and it is not necessary to have the same set aside.

4. After the death of Appasami Naidu, plaintiff and first defendant requested defendants 2 to 4 to have an amicable settlement. They did not agree for the same. Therefore, first defendant, after issuing notice to all the other sisters, filed O.S.No.122 of 1986, on the file of Subordinate Judge, Tiruppur. Though, the plaintiff was made a defendant, she also shared the expenses with the first defendant. O.S.No.122 of 1986 was listed for trial on 9.8.1989, and the same was adjourned on two occasions, for reporting settlement. First defendant thereafter, in collusion with the other defendants, allowed the suit be dismissed for default. Even after the dismissal of O.S.No.122 of 1986, defendants 1 to 4 had been assuring the plaintiff that they will join her as vendors whenever any portion of the property was sold, and also agreed that the sale proceeds can be shared equally. When it was found that the intention was only to defeat the rights of the plaintiff, she filed I.A.No. 1239 of 1989 to restore the suit O.S.No.122 of 1986. It is said that on the date of filing of the present suit, the restoration application was pending. It is said that after the restoration application was filed, defendants 1 to 4 entered into an agreement in respect of portions of the property which are most valuable, and they have taken huge sums from the prospective purchasers. The present attitude of the defendants that the partition deed dated 30.9.1970 is not a void document and it binds them is against the claim put forward in O.S.No.122 of 1986. Plaintiff says that ignoring the deed dated 30.9.1970, all the properties had to be divided by metes and bounds.

9. Not satisfied with the decree of the lower Court, plaintiff has preferred this appeal.

10. After filing the appeal, the appellant died. Her legal representative has been impleaded as additional second appellant.

11. Learned counsel for the appellants attacked the judgment and decree of the Lower Court on the ground that when a transaction is held to be void, it is void for all purposes. A transaction cannot be void, and also valid at the same time. In this case, the Authorities under the Land Ceiling Act have held that the partition deed is void and, therefore, it has to be taken that there is no such document at all. Later Appasami Naidu continued to be the owner of all the properties, though on paper, i.e., under the partition deed dated 30.9.1970, the properties are alleged to have been allotted to his daughters. He died intestate and, therefore, a partition by metes and bounds of all the properties left behind by Appasami Naidu excluding the properties taken over by the Government, has to be effected. According to the learned counsel the partition deed was intended to defeat a law of the land and, therefore, invalid and cannot take effect.

13. The trial Court accepted the case of the respondents and held that the document is valid as between the parties to the transaction and it is invalid only as against the Government, and that too, only insofar as the excess lands are concerned.

14. The only point that requires consideration in this appeal is, whether the partition deed dated 30.9.1970 is void for all purposes, whether it is valid as between the parties to the transaction. Incidentally, a question may arise as to whether the document is valid only to the extent it defeats the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Land Ceiling Act.