Muthusamy vs K.M.Subramaniam
Both the learned counsels have relied upon a catena of judgments on the issue. But all the judgments lay down the same principle laid down in Section 6 (5) of the Amended Act which reads as follows:
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.57 seconds)Documents citing
Kanna Gounder vs Arjuna Gounder on 22 November, 2002
Muthusamy vs K.M.Subramaniam on 17 December, 2014
Both the learned counsels have relied upon a catena of judgments on the issue. But all the judgments lay down the same principle laid down in Section 6 (5) of the Amended Act which reads as follows:
Radhamani Ammal vs Ramu Udayar on 18 January, 2018
17. From the above said decisions, it is seen that the co-parcener is precluded by law to effect the gift of the interest of the undivided share and in such view of the matter, when it is found that the plaintiff has laid the suit seeking the relief of permanent injunction based upon Ex.A1 settlement deed, which cannot be validly accepted as per the above said decision of the Apex Court, it is seen that the present suit laid by the plaintiff as against the other co-owners of the properties concerned, is found to be not maintainable. The defendants' counsel for the proposition that the co-owner is not entitled to maintain the suit for permanent injunction as against the other co-owners, relied upon the decisions reported in 1997 SCC Online Bom 473 (Bhaguji Bayaji Pokale and others Vs. Kantilal Baban Gunjawate and others), CDJ 2003 MHC 060 (Kanna Gounder & Another Vs. Arjuna Gounder), 2010-3-L.W.33 (S.Venkatesh Babu Vs. Ms. Swetha) and (2002) 9 SCC 608 (Sakhahari Parwatrao Karahale and another Vs. Bhimashankar Parwatrao Karahale). From the above said decisions, it could be seen that the plaintiff is prohibited from maintaining the suit against the co-owners for permanent injunction and as possession by one co-owner shall be on behalf of the other co-owners also, it is seen that the present suit laid by the plaintiff without demarcating the share in respect of the plaint schedule of properties, to which she is actually entitled to, particularly, when it is seen that the B schedule properties are not described by giving any specific boundaries and only described as undivided share and when it is found that the parties to the lis are jointly entitled to the plaint schedule properties having undivided share in the same, it is seen that the suit laid by the plaintiff, on the above ground is found to be not maintainable.
Mahendra Swamy vs Basavarajappa Dead By Lr'S on 22 November, 2012
5. Kanna Gounder and another Vs. Arjuna Gounder, AIR
2003 Madras 157,
Shanmugaiah vs Thirumalayandi Alias on 17 March, 2004
8. The learned Counsel for the first respondent in support of his
contention relied on a decision of this Court reported in (2003) 1 M.L.J. 145
(KANNA GOUNDER AND ANOTHER V. ARJUNA GOUNDER), which in the opinion of this
Court, squarely applies to the present facts of the case. In the instant
case, though the second defendant can dispose of his undivided interest in the
coparcenary property by way of a settlement deed, he cannot create the same
without the consent of all the other coparceners. Since the relief sought for
by the plaintiff solely rested on the validity of the settlement deed, and the
settlement deed is declared invalid, the plaintiffs cannot have the relief on
the basis of the same. Both the Courts below were perfectly correct in
finding so both on factual and legal position. This Court is unable to notice
any reason to disturb the concurrent finding of both the Courts below.
Elayammal vs N.Padmavathy on 24 September, 2012
6. 2003(1) MLJ 145-Madras High Court [Kanna Gounder and another vs. Arjuna Gounder]
Padmavathi Ammal vs Natarajan
Per contra, the counsel for the defendants placed reliance upon the decision reported in (2003) 1 MLJ 145 (Kanna Gounder and another Vs. Arjuna Gounder), (2008) 7 MLJ 903 (S.C) (Baljinder Singh Vs. Rattan Singh) and (1987) 3 Supreme Court Cases 294 (Thamma Venkata Subbamma (Dead) by LR Vs. Thamma Rattamma and others), for the proposition that the settlement effected in respect of the ancestral properties or coparcener properties is wholly invalid.
Gopal Raja (Died) vs Selvaraj on 19 July, 2019
18. Further, to support his case, the learned counsel appearing
for the respondent/defendant relied on the judgment of this Court
made in the case of Kanna Gounder and another vs. Arjuna
http://www.judis.nic.in
11
Gounder, reported in 2003 (1) MLJ 145, wherein in paragraph No.
13, it has been held as follows::
Subramani vs Arun on 2 November, 2022
In support of his contentions, the learned Counsel relied upon the
judgment of this Court in Kanna Gounder and Anr. Vs. Arjuna Gounder5,
more specifically relying upon paragraph No.13 that a coparcener cannot
gift a property without the consent of the other coparceners.
B.Kamala Ammal vs Saroja @ Padmavathy on 3 June, 2019
In addition to that, when Ex.B8 settlement deed is found
to be executed in respect of the undivided family properties
belonging to the family members, as contended, when no
settlement could be effected in respect of the joint family properties
in favour of the other family members or a stranger without the
consent of the other family members / coparceners and when it is
further noted that the plaintiff had not given her consent for the
settlement deed marked as Ex.B8, in the light of the principles of
http://www.judis.nic.in
13
law outlined in the decisions reported in (2003) 1 MLJ 145
(Kanna Gounder and another vs. Arjuna Gounder, (2008) 7
MLJ 903 (S.C) (Baljinder Singh vs. Rattan Singh) and (1987)
3 Supreme Court Cases 294 (Thamma Venkata Subbamma
(dead) by Lr. vs. Thamma Rattamma and others), it is found
that the settlement deed date 02.07.1970 in respect of the joint
family properties, even assuming the same to be true, is wholly
invalid and not binding upon the plaintiff as per law.