Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2.3. On 9.5.2009 when the Plaintiff was jogging in the early morning hours, one of the brokers who dealt with the ‘B’ schedule property came and informed him that his brother purported to have sold the plaint ‘B’ schedule property to the second Defendant and on 11.5.2009 the Plaintiff obtained certified copy of sale deed and shocked to know the recitals of the same which is not supported with consideration. The second Defendant is not the bonafide purchaser for value without notice of the Plaintiff’s right, interest, title and joint possession in the plaint ‘B’ schedule property. The entire original documents are with the Plaintiff. The second Defendant is set up by the first Defendant to entangle the property into litigation and gain advantage to defeat the preferential right of the Plaintiff. Hence the said impugned sale deed dated https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/10/2025 01:24:38 pm ) 20.4.2009 purported to have been executed by the first Defendant in favour of the second Defendant is to be declared as null and void, not valid and binding on the Plaintiff. The Defendants 1 and 2 are contemplating to demolish the existing 3” thickness wall running North to South in the plaint ‘A’ schedule property and reduce the passage and pathway to a width of 3’ running North to south and planning to construct a wall running North to south from the street end with a mala fide intention to restrict and reduce the passage leading to the rear portion, which will affect the Plaintiff’s free access to the road. The balance of convenience and prima facie case are in favour of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff has made improvement in the plaint ‘A’ schedule property by putting up construction on the remaining vacant site in the plaint ‘A’ schedule property worth about Rs.24,00,000/-. Under section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act and Partition Act the Plaintiff is entitled to right of pre-emption to purchase the undivided other half share belongs to the first Defendant. The total frontage of the plaint ‘A’ schedule property is only 19’. The rear portion should have access to the street Sampangi Street. At least 5’ passage is required for emergency exit for ingress and egress. The Plaintiff is entitled to half share in the plaint ‘A’ schedule property and the Plaintiff is paying the property tax and water and sewerage tax to the competent authority since 1987 onwards though the Plaintiff and the first Defendant are in joint possession. Hence the suit.

3.2. It is only the 1st Defendant who sacrificed for the betterment of whole family members is unforgettable. The sister of the Plaintiff and the 1st https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/10/2025 01:24:38 pm ) Defendant Mrs. Pushpa gave her daughter in marriage to the Plaintiff joined together and were teasing the 1st Defendant in all his activities. The Plaintiff after extracting the 1st Defendant’s hard earned labor exhibited in the Koor- chit dated 10.7.1996 to claim exclusive possession over the property which is in the rear side of the schedule ‘A’ property. It is the Plaintiff who shifted the electricity connection to claim exclusive right over the same. Mrs. Mohana after the construction of the rear side property wanted a portion in the constructed place which was negatived and hence she vacated from the property. The Koor-chit dated 10.7.1996 will play a prominent role in dividing the right between the Plaintiff and the 1st Defendant and the Plaintiff is having the original instrument which was written in his own hand writing signed by both the Plaintiff will give quietus to the illegal claim made by the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff who claims exclusive right over the superstructure in the rear side, also attempted to claim rent from the present tenants Shaji, Shankar in the first floor, Thilaga and Kumar in the second floor in all to the tune of Rs.20,000/- per month and also wanted to disturb the 1st Defendant’s right over the front portion. For the notice dated 9.5.2006 seeking the Plaintiff to have amicable partition of ‘A’ schedule, the Plaintiff belatedly replied on 21.6.2006 and finally it was resolved between the 1st Defendant and the Plaintiff that this Defendant to allow the Plaintiff to take the constructed rear side portion and to allow this Defendant to occupy the remaining frontage as https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/10/2025 01:24:38 pm ) the rear side portion also have access from T.K.Govinda Reddiar’s 3rd lane. Though this Defendant allowed for that, the Plaintiff started demanding 5 ft passage illegally, which was finally concluded between this Defendant and the Plaintiff to allow this Defendant to treat the existing 3 feet passage as common and to enjoy the rest of the portion with equal proportion. This demand would reflect in the reply notice dated 21.6.2006. The sale deed is perfectly valid in the eye of law in view of the Koor-chit dated 10.7.1996. This Defendant has received the sale consideration for the execution of the sale deed and the sale is fulfilled with the necessary ingredients as contemplated in the Transfer of Property Act and the sale deed is valid in law. The possession of the original documents does not evolve any additional right or title to the applicant. Absolutely for this Defendant’s necessity and the illegality committed by the Plaintiff, this Defendant was forced to sell the front portion to an extent of 660 sq.ft together with the common enjoyment of the passage by virtue of the sale deed dated 20.4.2009. The Plaintiff is entitled only to an extent of 3 feet width common pathway. Since the Plaintiff and the 1st Defendant had already entered into a Koor-chit dated 10.07.1996 appended by a sketch expressing their intention in sharing the property, the prayer to seek for a preliminary and final decree is not valid in the eye of law. The Plaintiff’s claim for a preferential right to purchase other half without mentioning of correct particulars is not valid in the eye of law and as per Section 22 of the Hindu https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/10/2025 01:24:38 pm ) Succession Act preferential right can be claimed only when an attempt is made, but in this case the 1st Defendant has sold his share to the 2nd Defendant and the question of preferential right will not arise. The Plaintiff failed and neglected to allege any valid reason to seek cancellation of the registered sale deed dated 20.4.1999, which is valid in law. Since the Koor-chit dated 10.07.1996 is binding between the parties, not only the claim of permanent injunction by the Plaintiff but the whole suit claim is liable to be dismissed. After various disputes raised by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff and the 1st Defendant decided to reduce the terms arrived between them by Koor-chit and accordingly a nonjudicial stamp paper valuing Rs.10/- was purchased in the name of the Plaintiff and the 1st Defendant dated 3.7.1996 and the Plaintiff in his own handwriting reduced the terms by writing and the same was signed by both the parties on 10.7.1996 by 8.10 am. The original instrument was retained by the Plaintiff and the photostat copy was handed over to the 1st Defendant. In the said instrument the rear side portion was allotted to the Plaintiff with a passage of 3 feet on th eastern side measuring 3 ft x 40 ft was allowed which was later treated as common between both parties. The 1st Defendant is still owing his balance property in ‘A’ schedule. Under patta schedule ‘A’ is excess by 20 feet. The Plaintiff is also now attempting to claim the staircase leading to the first and second floor for the exclusive use of the rear side portion. The well which situates in the rear side is also meant for both parties. Therefore, the 1st https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/10/2025 01:24:38 pm ) Defendant is filing this written statement with counter claim praying to (i) to dismiss the suit filed by the Plaintiff; (ii) that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to declare the Koor-chit dated 10.07.1996 entered by the Plaintiff and the 1st Defendant is binding on the Plaintiff and the 1st Defendant; (iii) for a permanent injunction restraining the Plaintiff and his men and agents from in any manner interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property which is described in the schedule; and (iv) to pass such further or other orders as this Court may deem fit proper in the circumstances of the case.

The failure on the part of the Plaintiff to include the property in Mannur Village, Sriperumpudur Taluk, Kanchipuram District and to add the sisters of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/10/2025 01:24:38 pm ) the Plaintiff and the 1st Defendant who are necessary for the said claim and the suit is thus hit by Order II, Rule 2 of C.P.C. The heirship and genealogy of the title for the property set out in schedule ‘A’ is part and parcel of fact and records. The death of the parents of the Plaintiff and the 1st Defendant are admitted, but claiming preferential right over the expenses incurred during hospitalization is denied. It is only the 1st Defendant who sacrificed for the betterment of whole family members is unforgettable. The sister of the Plaintiff and the 1st Defendant Mrs. Pushpa gave her daughter in marriage to the Plaintiff joined together and were teasing the 1st Defendant in all his activities. The Plaintiff after extracting the 1st Defendant’s hard earned labor exhibited the Koor-chit dated 10.7.1996 to claim exclusive possession over the property which is in the rear side of the schedule ‘A’ property. It is the Plaintiff who shifted the electricity connection to claim exclusive right over the same. Mrs. Mohana after the construction of the rear side property wanted a portion in the constructed place which was negatived and hence she vacated from the property. The Koor-chit dated 10.7.1996 will play a prominent role in dividing the right between the Plaintiff and the 1st Defendant and the Plaintiff is having the original instrument which was written in his own hand writing signed by both the Plaintiff will give quietus to the illegal claim made by the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff who claims exclusive right over the superstructure in the rear side, also attempt to claim rent from the present tenants Shaji, Shankar in the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/10/2025 01:24:38 pm ) first floor, Thilaga and Kumar in the second floor in all to a tune of Rs.20,000/- per month and also wanted to disturb these Defendants’ right over the front portion. For the notice dated 9.5.2006 seeking the Plaintiff to have amicable partition of ‘A’ schedule, the Plaintiff belatedly replied on 21.6.2006 and finally it was resolved between the 1st Defendant and the Plaintiff that this Defendant to allow the Plaintiff to take the constructed rear side portion and to allow this Defendant to occupy the remaining frontage as the rear side portion also have access from T.K.Govinda Reddiar’s 3rd lane. Though this Defendant allowed for that, the Plaintiff started demanding 5 ft passage illegally, which was finally concluded between this Defendant and the Plaintiff to allow this Defendant to treat the existing 3 feet passage as common and to enjoy the rest of the portion with equal proportion. This demand would reflect in the reply notice dated 21.6.2006. The sale deed is perfectly valid in the eye of law in view of the Koor-chit dated 10.7.1996. The 1st Defendant has received the sale consideration for the execution of the sale deed and the sale is fulfilled with the necessary ingredients as contemplated in the Transfer of Property Act and the sale deed is valid in law. The possession of the original documents does not evolve any additional right or title to the applicant. Absolutely for the Defendants necessity and the illegality committed by the Plaintiff, the 1st Defendant was forced to sell the front portion to an extent of 660 sq.ft. together with the common enjoyment of the passage by virtue of the sale deed dated https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/10/2025 01:24:38 pm ) 20.4.2009. The Plaintiff is entitled only to an extent of 3 feet width common pathway. Since the Plaintiff and the 1st Defendant had already entered into a Koor-chit dated 10.07.1996 appended by a sketch expressing their intention in sharing the property, the prayer to seek for a preliminary and final decree is not valid in the eye of law. The Plaintiff’s claim for a preferential right to purchase other half without mentioning of correct particulars is not valid in the eye of law and as per Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act preferential right can be claimed only when an attempt is made, but in this case the 1st Defendant has sold his share to the 2nd Defendant and the question of preferential right will not arise. The Plaintiff failed and neglected to allege any valid reason to seek cancellation of the registered sale deed dated 20.4.1999, which is valid in law. Since the Koorchit dated 10.07.1996 is binding between the parties, not only the claim of permanent injunction by the Plaintiff but the whole suit claim is liable to be dismissed. After various disputes raised by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff and the 1st Defendant decided to reduce the terms arrived between them by Koor-chit and accordingly a non-judicial stamp paper valuing Rs.10/- was purchased in the name of the Plaintiff and the 1st Defendant dated 3.7.1996 and the Plaintiff in his own handwriting reduced the terms by writing and the same was signed by both the parties on 10.7.1996 by 8.10 am. The original instrument was retained by the Plaintiff and the photostat copy was handed over to the 1st Defendant. In the said instrument the rear side portion https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/10/2025 01:24:38 pm ) was allotted to the Plaintiff with a passage of 3 feet on th eastern side measuring 3 ft x 40 ft was allowed which was later treated as common between both parties. The 1st Defendant is still owing his balance property in ‘A’ schedule. Under patta schedule ‘A’ is excess by 20 feet. The Plaintiff is also now attempting to claim the staircase leading to the first and second floor for the exclusive use of the rear side portion. The well which situates in the rear side is also meant for both parties. The Defendants have every right to use the same. The suit property is not an ancestral property and it is already bequeathed by virtue of a settlement deed dated 20.12.1971 executed by late Kanniah Reddy, grandfather of the 1st Defendant. Hence the suit has to be dismissed.

10. The second Defendant in C.S.No. 439 of 2009 on the file of the original side of the High Court is the Appellant herein. He is the purchaser of the property from the first Defendant. The Plaintiff in C.S.No. 439 of 2009 on https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/10/2025 01:24:38 pm ) the file of the original side of the High Court had filed a suit seeking the relief of partition to declare the Plaintiff is entitled for preferential right to purchase the half share of the property in Plaint “A” Schedule from the first Defendant; to declare the sale deed dated 20.04.2009 purported to have been executed by the first Defendant in favour of the second Defendant in respect of the Plaint “B” Schedule property bearing Old No.9, New No.17, Sambangi Reddy Street, West Mambalam, Chennai -600 033 as null and void, sham and nominal, not valid and binding on the Plaintiff and to grant permanent injunction restraining the Defendant, agent, servant, any person claiming through them from in any manner interfering with or reducing or restricting the width of the pathway measuring 4 feet x 4 feet 6 inches running North to South from Sambangi Reddy Street and sewerage and drainage connection leading from Plain “B” Schedule property to the rear portion in occupation of the Plaintiff in the premises in Old No.9, New No.19, Sambangi Reddy Street, West Mambalam, Chennai – 6000 033.