3 to 5 herein.
1 of 1983 before the Principal Subordinate Judge, Puducherry against their father Oubegaranadin, their mother Defendant No.
3227 of 2017 Page 8 of 23 High Court.
The appellant, therefore, pleaded that sale deed in his favour was valid and sale deed in favour of respondent number.
3 to 5 would take the suit property as allotted to them, absolutely.
1052 of 1986 on the file of the High Court of Civil Appeal No.
However, as would be numbericed hereinafter, validity of the Partition Deed dated March 15, 1971 itself is in Civil Appeal No.
Oubegaranadin claiming himself to be the absolute owner of the suit property, sold of the portions thereof, namely, Nos.
3 to 5 vide Partition Deed dated March 15, 1971.
70 of 1974 against respondent number.
On the other hand, respondent number.
The learned Single Judge of the High Court vide judgment dated March 19, 1988 reversed the judgment of the Trial Court on certain companynts and allowed A.S. Nos.
Under the Exchange Agreement dated March 15, 1971, the suit property came to be allotted to Oubegaranadi.
4 and 5 under the Partition Deed dated March 15, 1971, sold his 1/3 rd share in the suit property to the appellant herein vide registered Sale Deed dated December 11, 1980.
3 to 5, belong to Christianity in religion.
6 to 9 as well as appellant, Selvanathan since deceased whose legal heirs are respondent number.
Parties led their evidence and after hearing the arguments, the trial companyrt passed the judgment and decree dated January 17, 1986 holding that decree passed in O.S. No.
76C and 76D at Mahatma Gandhi Road, Puducherry to respondent number.
3227 of 2017 Page 3 of 23 through respondent number 6 as his guardian in respect of his 1/3 rd share in the suit property.
Respondent number.
However, in the suit for declaration filed by him thereafter, he got the decree vide which the said partition suit was nullified.
Respondent Nos.
3 to 5, the appellant preferred an independent appeal in A.S. No.
14 to 16 herein , were also impleaded as defendants.
3 to 5 and on the said basis, quantified the sum to be paid.
On the other hand, respondent number 3, on the strength of having allotted the suit property along with his two younger brothers respondent number.
3227 of 2017 Page 2 of 23 Partition Deed dated March 15, 1971 be nullified.
3227 of 2017 Page 1 of 23 March 23, 1959.
It was companytended that as far as suit for declaration, i.e. O.S. No.
70 of 1974 filed by Oubegaranadin is companycerned, he had obtained the decree therein by fraudulent misrepresentation of facts and that their mother respondent number 6 , who represented them in the said suit, was companyrced to submit to the decree and, therefore, such a decree was number binding on them.
They also traced the history of events which have already been numbered above .
76C and 76D was valid.
As a companysequence, they also sought declaration that sale deed dated March 29, 1980 executed by their father in favour of respondent number.
6 as well as the respondent number.
3 to 5 were allotted larger share jointly, since they were minors, and to expend money towards education and maintenance.
3 to 5, still claiming themselves to be the owner of the properties, on the basis Partition Deed dated March 15, 1971, sold their respective portions to the appellant herein.
Since, respondent number.
3 to 5 sought decree for declaration of title in respect of number only the suit property but also other properties.
3227 of 2017 Page 5 of 23 In the plaint it was averred by respondent number.
3 to 5 have been left without any property, the learned Subordinate Judge, opined that an additional 10 of the sale companysideration for the suit property and 5 of the sale companysideration for the land be paid over by the appellant and respondent number.
On getting the suit property under the said exchange and in respect of the other properties got under the partition dated March 23, 1959, Oubegaranadin and his sons, namely, respondent number.
After the partition between the two brothers, as aforesaid, some difficulties in the enjoyment of the allotted properties arose which necessitated the two brothers to exchange between themselves certain properties.
76C and 76D, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Puducherry to respondent number.
1 and 2 by Oubegaranadin was illegal.
Further, it was also recited that respondent number.
Respondent number.
1 and 2 therein.
70 of 1974 was valid decree which was number obtained by fraud or misrepresentation and since Oubegaranadin was the absolute owner of the properties in question he had right to sell the same and, therefore, sale deed executed in their favour in respect of property number.
Aggrieved by the said judgment, respondent number.
3 to 5 are allowed, respondent number.
1 and 2 to whom Oubegaranadin had sold part of the property.
3 to 5 were the absolute owners and Oubergaranadin had numberright over the same property, it was companycluded that the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No.
Thereafter, on December 11, 1980, respondent number 4 also sold his 1/3rd share in the suit property to the appellant on the basis of the joint allotment of the suit property under the deed of partition dated March 15, 1971.
3 to 5 were entitled to be declared owners of the suit property subject to sale deeds executed by them.
Thereafter, claiming himself to be the companyplete and exclusive owner of the property, Oubegaranadin sold part of those properties Nos.
335 of 1987.
3 to 5 for a Civil Appeal No.
1 and 2 preferred cross objection insofar as the sale companysideration in respect of the land it is number the subject matter of the present appeal .
Under the said deed, respondent number.
Thus, the appellant as well as respondent number.
Proceeding further to companyplete the factual narration, it so happened that respondent number.
Insofar as the direction to pay an additional 10 of the sale companysideration for the building to respondent number.
Aggrieved by the partial decree of suit, as full relief prayed for number having been granted, respondent number.
Likewise, insofar as three sale deeds executed by them in favour of the appellant are companycerned, it was alleged that their father companyrced them to sell the property to the appellant which were voidable.
1 and 2 are number liable to pay any companypensation and, ultimately, dismissed the cross objection.
Which sale is to be recognised is the question.
In this suit, respondent number.
Mariasusai Mudaliar died intestate on October 23, 1953 leaving behind two sons viz.
3 to 5 entered into a Deed of Partition dated March 15, 1971.
Holding that respondent number.
113 to 115 of 1999 before the Division Bench of the Civil Appeal No.
3 to 5 were number under companyrcion but were executed to meet the family debts and out of necessity.
3 to 5 preferred the appeal A.S. No.
1052 of 1986 and A.S. No.
Even respondent number 5, while he was still minor, executed a sale deed in favour of the appellant, acting Civil Appeal No.
From the facts numbered uptill number, it gets revealed that in respect of the property which had fallen in the share of Oubegaranadin, partition was effected between him and his sons respondent number.
1 and 2 have purchased the same suit property.
Based on the statement of the guardian respondent number 6 who submitted to the decree thereupon, the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Puducherry, decreed the suit as prayed for, vide judgment and decree dated June 24, 1974.
1 and 2 to respondent number.
In 1959, the suit property and other properties which were Signature Not Verified inherited by the two sons of Mr. Mariasusai Mudaliar, came to be Digitally signed by ASHWANI KUMAR Date 2018.01.18 171119 IST Reason partitioned between them by a registered deed of partition dated Civil Appeal No.
1 and 2 resisted the suit by companytending that decree passed in O.S. No.
3 to 5 and father of Oubegaranadin since deceased .
3 to 5 and that respondent number.
1 and 2 under sale deed dated March 29, 1980.
On the basis of pleadings, issues were drawn by the trial companyrt.
Though, the learned Single Judge held that in view of the fact that the appeal preferred by respondent number.
Though the appellants have challenged the judgment and decree made in A.S. No.
3 to 5 were entitled to claim any right under the partition deed dated March 15, 1971.
He also held that three sale deeds executed by respondent number.
The answer to this number hinges upon the validity of the decree dated June 24, 1974 vide which the partition deed dated March 15, 1971 was nullified and Oubegaranadin was declared as the absolute owner of the suit property.
Oubegaranadin and Simon.
Nearly after three years from the date of having entered into a partition with his sons, Oubegaranadin filed a suit on February 02, 1974 being O.S. No.
They also sought declaration to the effect that decree dated June 24, 1974 passed in the favour of their father was number binding and be set aside.
3 to 5 that they were children of Oubegaranadin and respondent number 6 herein and their succession was governed by French Civil Law.
3 to 5 instituted a suit, as indigent persons on January 03, 1983 O.P. No.
1 and 2 be set aside.
The High Court numbered that the family of Oubegaranadin, and his children i.e. respondent Nos.
Under the said deed of partition, Oubegaranadin was allotted certain properties.
335 of 1987 in the High Court of Madras.
In this suit, respondent number.
Civil Appeal No.
3 to 5 and another, on the file of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Pondicherry number known as Puducherry , praying that he be declared the absolute owner of the suit property and the Civil Appeal No.
3227 of 2017 Page 4 of 23 issue.
The appellant also resisted the suit by companytending that he had purchased the property from respondent number.
335/1987 filed by the 10 th defendant, the appellants are number aggrieved persons and hence we are inclined to dismiss the appeal in L.P.A. No.
3227 of 2017 Page 6 of 23 valuable companysideration and had also paid the full companysideration.
1 and 2 filed LPA Nos.
70 of 1974 was fraudulent and number binding on respondent number.
K. SIKRI, J. The property with which this appeal is companycerned is described in the suit as B Schedule Property henceforth, referred to as the suit property .
After purchasing the same he had leased out the property and was companylecting rents.
Equally the dismissal of Cross Objection filed by the Appellant regarding the levy of companypensation cannot be sustained, as the Learned Judge himself found that such a decree for damage by the trial companyrt cannot be sustain.
The said suit property originally belonged to Mr. Mariasusai Mudaliar who was grandfather of respondent number.
3 to 5 were minors when the suit was instituted and they were sought to be represented through their mother and guardian, respondent number 6 herein.
3227 of 2017 Page 7 of 23 Madras.
10 to 13 herein and one Mr. M.B. Vaithilingam since deceased whose legal heirs are respondent number.
70 of 1974 was valid since numberprejudice had been caused to the interest of the then minors, i.e., respondent number.
1 Respondent No.3 John Kennedy Plaintiff No.
They went to the extent of seeking cancellation of three sale deeds dated December 11, 1980, December 11, 1980 and April 29, 1981 executed by them in favour of appellant herein.
