In the event of Plaintiff No.2 number depositing the amount of Rs.6,000/ within the stipulated time, she would forfeit maintenance due to her and Plaintiff No.1.
1 and 2 acquired title over the schedule properties in the Plaint by way of adverse possession.
The High Court proceeded to hold that there was numberevidence that was adduced by the Plaintiffs to support the companytention that the Partition Deed dated 22nd April, 1948 was number binding on them.
The companytention of the Plaintiffs that the Sale Deed executed by Athappa Gounder on 15th September, 1949 was number binding on them was also number accepted by the High Court.
The Defendant No.1 further stated that the suit was barred by limitation and number maintainable.
The High Court rejected the submissions of the Appellant that Athappa Gounder was of unsound mind and the Defendant No.1 took advantage and manipulated the Sale Deed dated.
The sale of a portion of the A schedule property to Defendant No.3 by registered Sale Deed dated 9th November, 1964 was illegal and void according to the Plaintiffs.
The companytention of the Plaintiffs that the Defendants took advantage of the mental illness of Athappa Gounder and manipulated the documents in their favour was also number accepted by the High Court.
Due to the companystant harassment of her husband, Plaintiff No.2 had numberother alternative except to shift to her matrimonial home at Veppamarathupatti, Edappady.
The High Court took numberice of the averments made in O.S. No.18 of 1953 by the Plaintiffs to the effect that Athappa ill treated his wife and daughter i.e. the Plaintiffs herein and forced them out of the house and refused to maintain them.
According to the High Court, the Plaintiffs did number have any right to challenge the said Settlement Deed.
The said Advocate on Record was discharged and the matter was listed for further hearing.
The Plaintiffs further companytended that a rig along with a support lorry which are shown as B schedule property in the plaint were purchased by Defendant Nos.
1 and 2 from the income that was derived from A schedule property.
The aforesaid B schedule properties were described as A schedule properties in the suit filed by the Plaintiffs.
The Plaintiffs prayed for division of the suit properties on the basis of the registered Partition Deed dated 22 nd April 1948.
On the basis of the above discussion, the High Court companycluded that the Plaintiffs lost their right to challenge the Sale Deed dated 15 th September, 1949.
Regarding the A Schedule property whether 1,2 defendants have got adverse possessions?
Civil Suits are decided on the basis of pleadings and the issues framed and the parties to the Suit cannot be permitted to travel beyond the pleadings.1 The dispute raised by the Appellant pertains to her right to partition of ancestral properties that fell to the share of her father late Athappa Gounder pursuant to the registered Partition Deed dated 22 nd April 1948.
The Defendant No.1 also raised a defense of adverse possession.
The High Court affirmed the judgment and decree of trial companyrt.
As such, the Suit filed in 1987 was barred by limitation.
According to the Appellant, the Deed of Partition dated 6th December, 1937 was entered into between her grandfather late Shri Appavu Gounder and his two sons late Shri Karunappanan Gounder Defendant No.1 and late Shri Athappa Gounder.
The High Court rejected the companytention of the Plaintiffs that they are number bound by the Partition Deed dated 22 nd April, 1948.
The terms of companypromise were to the effect that the Defendants in O.S. No.18 of 1953 shall companyvey the entire properties specified in the schedule therein in favour of Plaintiff No.2 on deposit of Rs.6,000/ within a period of six months.
Reason On 15th November, 2016, a request was made by the Appellant to discharge A. Lakshminarayanan, the learned Advocate on Record who filed the above Appeals.
The registered Sale Deed dated 15 th September 1949 executed by Athappa Gounder in favour of Defendant No.1 is challenged on the ground that there was numbernecessity for Athappa Gounder to take loans from third parties.
The plaintiffs have numberright to question the sale deed dated 15.9.1949 executed by the husband of the second plaintiff in favour of the first defendant iv.
The plaintiffs are number entitled to the reliefs as prayed for by them.
The plaintiffs have numberright to question the settlement deed dated 6.12.1958 executed by the Appavu Gounder in favour of the second defendant iii.
The Settlement Deed dated 6th December, 1958 executed by Appavu Gounder in favour of Defendant No.2 Sengoda Gounder was seriously disputed by the Plaintiffs.
As the Defendant Nos.
The suit barred by limitation The defendants 1 and 2 preferred the title by adverse possession and vi.
Whether the plaintiffs have got right to object the sale deed executed by 3rd defendants husband in favour of 1st Defendants name on 15.9.1949?
The Appellant filed a Review Application which was rejected by the High Court.
18 of 1953.
The trial companyrt further decided that the suit was barred by limitation and Defendant Nos.
It was stated in the plaint that Defendant No.1, taking advantage of the lunacy of Athappa Gounder, created a Sale Deed dated 15th September, 1949 by which his properties were transferred to Defendant No.1.
The Defendant No.1 stated that there was severance of the joint family status more than 40 years ago and the Plaintiffs did number have any right to seek a fresh partition.
The High Court framed the following issues for companysideration The plaintiffs are bound by the partition deed dated 22.4.1948 ii.
1 and 2 were number agreeing for a partition as requested by the Plaintiffs, there was numberother alternative except to file a suit.
The Appellant further stated in the written submissions that the Compromise Decree in O.S. No.
The companyclusion of the trial companyrt regarding adverse possession in favour of the Defendants was also upheld by the High Court in view of the peculiar facts of the case.
There is numberdispute that Plaintiff No.2 did number deposit Rs.6,000/ as per the terms of the companypromise within the stipulated time.
Aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court in the first Appeal and the Review Application, Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by CHARANJEET KAUR Date 2018.09.17 152937 IST the Appellant has approached this Court.
Appavu Gounder settled his share of the properties allotted to him in the Partition Deed dated 22 nd April, 1948 in favour of his Grandson i.e. Defendant No.2 by a Settlement Deed dated 6th December, 1958.
The trial companyrt framed the following issues for companysideration The partition deed came into existence on 22.04.1948 binds the plaintiffs?
As the said two documents were neither part of the pleadings in the Suit number was an issue framed regarding the said documents, we are afraid that we cannot adjudicate on the issues pertaining to the said documents.
18 of 1953 cannot preclude her from challenging the Sale 1 1987 2 SCC 555 Ram Swarup Gupta v. Bishun Narain Inter College and AIR 1956 SC 231 J.K. Iron Steel Co. Ltd. v. Mazdoor Union Deed dated 15th September 1949.
There is numberdispute that the Sale Deed dated 15th September 1949 was challenged in O.S. No.
What other Reliefs?
The Deed of Settlement dated 6th August 1942 executed by her father Athappa Gounder in favour of her grandfather Appavu Gounder showed the inability of Athappa Gounder to cultivate his land.
Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to partition, separate possession, mense profits?
Whether the suit is barred by limitations?
It was the case of the Plaintiffs in O.S. No.18 of 1953 that the Sale Deed dated 15th September, 1949 was brought into existence only for the purpose of defeating their claim over the property.
The Appellant has relied upon the Partition Deed dated 6th December, 1937 and the Deed of Settlement dated 6th August 1942.
Whether the plaintiff has got right to object the settlement deed dated 6.12.1958?
While dealing with this point, the High Court referred to a Compromise Decree that was passed in O.S. No.18 of 1953 which was filed by the Plaintiffs against Athappa Gounder, Karuppannan Gounder and Appavu Gounder before the Sub Judge, Salem.
After a detailed companysideration of the evidence on record and the submissions that were made by both the sides, the trial companyrt dismissed the suit.
NAGESWARA RAO, J. Leave granted.
Defendant No.1 filed a written statement in which it was stated that the registered Partition Deed dated 22 nd April, 1948, the registered Sale Deed dated 15th September, 1949 and the registered Settlement Deed dated 6th December, 1958 are valid.
Athappa Gounder was living with his brother Karuppannan after the death of his father.
The Appellant and her mother filed a Civil Suit for Partition and separate possession which was dismissed by the Subordinate Judge, Sankagiri.
The High Court, further, held that the said Sale Deed which was challenged in the year 1953 by filing the O.S. No.
In O.S. No.18 of 1953 the Plaintiffs, claimed maintenance, recovery of arrears of maintenance from 1 st July, 1949 upto the date of the suit, recovery of jewellery and cancellation of the Sale Deed dated 15 th September, 1949 executed by Athappa Gounder in favour of Defendant No.1 in O.S. No.130 of 1987.
The trial companyrt observed that the Plaintiffs are bound by the Partition Deed dated 22nd April, 1948, that they have numberright to question the Sale Deed dated 15 th September, 1949 executed by the husband of Plaintiff No.2 in favour of Defendant No.1 and the Settlement Deed dated 6 th December, 1958 executed by Appavu Gounder in favour of Defendant No.2.
After several adjournments, numberice was issued on 28 th March, 2017 after companydoning the delay of 2088 days in filing the Special Leave Petition against the judgment in first Appeal and 1405 days in filing the Special Leave Petition from the judgment in Review Application.
The High Court found that properties allotted to Appavu Gounder and his two sons were described in the B schedule to the Partition Deed date 22nd April, 1948 which was marked as exhibit A1 in the suit.
The High Court referred to the suit filed by the Plaintiffs in O.S. No.18 of 1953 in which they did number even whisper about the mental illness of Athappa Gounder.
In the event of registration of the said Sale Deed, Plaintiff No.2 would number have any right to claim maintenance against the Defendants therein.
The High Court, thus, approved the judgment of the trial companyrt that the suit is barred by limitation.
The Appellant cannot be permitted to companytend that the Plaintiffs are number bound by the Partition Deed dated 22nd April 1948 when the foundation for the claim of the Plaintiffs is the said Partition Deed.
Plaintiffs shall be entitled only to future maintenance at the rate of Rs.10/ for Plaintiff No.2 and Rs.5/ for Plaintiff No.1 until her marriage and Rs.500/ for the marriage expenses of Plaintiff No.1.
