The joint family owned and possessed various properties out of which shortly before his death in January 1979, Karuppanna bequeathed his half share in the joint family properties by executing a will in favour of Doraisamy, The evidence on record indicates that Karuppanna and Marappa had good terms.
It is on record that Karuppanna the father of Marappa Was alive till 6.2.1979.
15,000 on account of two pronotes executed by him in favour Chinnappa and Nallusamy respective for Rs.
The said suit before the learned Subordinate Munsif was subsequently transferred to the Court of the learned Subordinate Judge, Namakkal and was numbered as O.S. No.
10,000 and Rs.
Both the said creditors have deposed in the case instituted by Marappa as witnesses for the plaintiff and they have categorically deposed that they did number advance any loan for which pronotes had to be executed in their favour.
15,000 was paid to two creditors on account of alleged pronotes.
The sale deed was executed for a companysideration of Rs.
1507 of 1988 and Transferred A.S. No.
Being aggrieved by the judgments passed in the said suits, Marappa preferred appeals but during the pendency of such appeals, Marappa died and his son Sadasivam the appellant before this Court was brought on record as his legal representative.
96 of 1988 and Transferred A.S. No.
1996 2 SCR 336 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by G.N. RAY, J. Leave granted.
As a matter of fact, it is the positive case of the respondent Doraisamy that with the knowledge and companysent of Marappa the said will was executed by Karuppanna where Marappa was a signatory.
Hence, the finding made by the High Court that the sale deed executed by Marappa in favour of Doraisamy was a genuine document should number be accepted as a proper finding of fact on companysideration of relevant materials.
Transferred Appeal No.
There is numberevidence to suggest that during the period before 1979 to 1984 Marappa had to incur loans for the legal necessity for maintaining the family.
Marappa was number a man without means and he owned and possessed valuable properties.
187 of 1985 in the Court of learned Subordinate Judge, Namakkal.
The High Court disposed of all the said appeals by a companymon judgment dated December 1, 1994.
A.S. No.
The father of the appellant Sadasivam was one Marappa Gounder, The said Marappa Gounder filed a suit in the Court of the learned Subordinate Judge, Namakkal being O.S. No.
The sale deed and both the pronotes were produced by Marappa.
168 of 1987 in the said Court.
187 of 1985 for a declaration that the sale deed executed by the said Marappa in favour of The respondent Doraisamy was a sham document and had number been acted upon.
The disputed sale deed was executed in 1984.
1994 passed by the Division Bench of Madras High Court in A.S. No.
The said Marappa also filed another suit in the Court of the District Munsif, Namakkal being O.S. No.
The learned Subordinate Judge, Namakkal, dismissed the suits filed by Marappa but decreed the suit filed by the respondent Doraisamy inter alia on the finding that the sale deed executed by Marappa in favour of Doraisamy companyveying his share in the joint family properties was number a sham document but a valid document and the will executed by Karuppanna bequeathing his half share in the joint family properties in favour of the respondent Doraisamy was also a genuine will thereby companyveying the interest of Karuppanna in favour of the said Doraisamy.
274/85 in the Court of the learned Subordinate Judge, Namakkal inter alia for a declaration of half share in the joint properties by Karuppanna Gounder the father of Marappa since bequeathed to the said Doraisamy by a will dated January 17, 1979 executed by the said Karuppanna Gounder.
168/87, While the two suits were pending, the respondent Doraisamy also filed a suit being O.S. No.
1508 of 1988 arose out of O.S. No.
781 of 1985 for a permanent injunction restraining the respondent Doraisamy from interfering with the peaceful enjoyment of the suit proper ties being Survey number 149/1 on an allegation that the respondent had been attempting to encroach on the said property unlawfully.
The sale deed was purported to have been executed by Marappa for liquidating his antecedent debts to the tune of Rs.
Transferred A.S, No.
5,000.
No evidence was led to establish that he had to incur debts for maintenance of family.
Namakkal.
1507 of 1988 arose out of O.S. No.
96/88 Sadasivam was also an appellant.
1508 of 1988.
Heard learned companynsel for the parties.
These appeals arc directed against judgment dated December 1.
