Annavi vs A.Ganesan on 16 May, 2007
(ix) In 2001 (1) CTC 649 in the case of Rajamani and another vs.
Somasundaram and 3 others, the High Court has held as follows :
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 2 of 2 (0.34 seconds)Judgment Reserved On vs E.Maheswari on 27 February, 2018
(v) 2001 (1) CTC 649 (Rajamani and another Vs. Somasundaram and 3 others)
13.Merely going by the ipsi dixit oral version of D.W.1 and without any other supporting material, it is quite unsafe to hold that the suit schedule property was joint family property. When on the face of it, it was shown that Ex.B1 was brought into existence at the instance of the appellants herein with a view to stultify the claim of the first respondent, the Courts below rightly declined to rely upon the same to reach the conclusion about the nature of the property as a joint family property as claimed by the appellants. The very fact that the said suit came to be filed at the time when Ex A1 came into being and Ex.A6 came to be issued at the instance of the first respondent was sufficient to demonstrate that the whole purpose and intent of the appellants was to set at naught any legal proceedings that may be launched by the first respondent herein for the enforcement of his right under Ex.A1. It became more evident when the first defendant remained ex parte and thereby allowed the Court to pass a preliminary decree and also the subsequent conduct of the appellants as well as the first defendant in remaining silent without taking any further course of action by taking final decree proceedings in O.S.No.306 of 1986 strengthened the position that the whole proceedings were initiated for the purpose of creating a make a belief affair to veto any relief that may be claimed in the proposed action of the first respondent herein pursuant to the Issuance of Ex.A6. The admission of D.W.1 to the effect that on the date when he gave evidence in Court he continued to live in a joint family would show that there was absolutely no cause of action for the appellants herein to move the suit in O.S.No.306 of 86 except for the purpose of creating a pseudo legal impediment for the first respondent to pursue his remedy by way of the present suit. It is also significant to note that neither the appellants nor the first defendant were prepared to come out openly even after obtaining the decree under Ex-B1 to disclose about the details of it in their written statement, apparently with a view to keep the first respondent in dark and thereby prevent him from taking any steps to demonstrate before the Court about he futile exercise of the appellants in their attempt to thwart the claim that the suit schedule property was a joint family property, nothing prevented them from joining the first respondent in the said suit and staked their claims by asking for a joint trial of both the suits.
1