Gowri vs Shanthi And Anr

2. Before we narrate the facts, we trace out below the relationship between the parties that would make it easier to understand the dispute which has arisen between them and is the subject matter of the present appeal.

5. According to the appellant, Sundaramurthy executed a Settlement Deed so as to transfer the superstructure along with the lease hold rights over the property in favour of his sister Jagadambal (the original plaintiff). Subsequently, Jagadambal purchased the suit property from the temple authorities thereby becoming the undisputed owner of the said property. Jagadambal, being an old widow and without any issues, permitted the respondents, who were daughters of Sundaramurthy, to reside in the front portion of the suit property. Prior to this, the respondents were living in their respective matrimonial homes. The behaviour of the respondents changed subsequent to moving into the suit property and they began to interfere and quarrel with the tenants, apart from abusing Jagadambal, as a result of which Jagadambal was forced to move out and stay with the appellant herein.

6. Finally, being fed up with the behaviour of the respondents, Jagadambal called upon the respondents to vacate the suit property with all their belongings, vide legal notice dated 9.11.1995. The respondents replied to the said legal notice refuting the claim of Jagadambal.

8. This suit was contested by the respondents on the ground that they had inherited 2/3rd of the suit property, being legal heirs of Sundaramurthy and the so called Settlement Deed executed by Sundaramurthy to transfer the suit property in favour of his sister was a sham document. During the pendency of the aforesaid suit, the respondents also filed suit for partition (i.e. O.S. No. 8637 of 1998) before the City Civil Court, Chennai stating that the suit property was ancestral property of their father Sundaramurthy and as legal heirs they had one-third share each in this property and the other one third belonged to the appellant, being the third daughter.

11. Aggrieved by the dismissal of O.S. No. 8637 of 1998, the respondents herein preferred A.S. No. 1173 of 2004. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in O.S. NO. 15814 of 1996, the respondents herein preferred A.S. No. 1175 of 2004. During the pendency of the aforesaid appeals, Jagadambal died. The respondents herein filed a memo stating that the appellant herein alone is the legal heir of Jagadambal. On the application of the respondents, the High Court was pleased to implead the appellant herein as the sole legal heir of the deceased Jagadambal. Both these appeals came up for consideration before the High Court and were heard together. After hearing the parties A.S. No. 1173/2004 was dismissed by the High Court vide judgment dated 24.8.2011, inter alia, holding that Ex. B6 sale deed which had been executed by the temple authorities in favour of Jagadambal on 31.3.1950 would make it clear that the property had been purchased by Jagadambal after the settlement deed. The High Court also affirmed the finding of the Trial Court that it had been clearly proved that the property in question, after the Settlement Deed, was in possession and enjoyment of Jagadambal.

18. In view of our aforesaid discussion, we set aside that part of the judgment vide which appeal has been allowed partly and the parties are directed to file fresh suit with regard to the title over the suit property as stated in Paras 14 to 16 of the said impugned judgment. While setting aside that portion, we substitute it by the following directions:

20. The appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms. No costs.

…...............................................J. [SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR] …..............................................J. [A.K. SIKRI] New Delhi March 31, 2014 ITEM NO.1B COURT NO.6 SECTION XII S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Civil Appeal No.4245 Of 2014 @ Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).259/2012 GOWRI Petitioner(s) VERSUS SHANTHI AND ANR. Respondent(s) Date: 31/03/2014 This Appeal was called on for pronouncement of judgment today.

For Petitioner(s) Mr.Senthil Jagadeesan,Adv.

For Respondent(s) Hon'ble Mr. Justice A. K. Sikri pronounced the judgment of the Bench comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh Nijjar and His Lordship.

Leave granted.

The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed non-reportable judgment.

[Signed non-reportable judgment is placed on the file.]

C.P. SUNDARAMURTHY (Son) JAGADAMBAL (Daughter) Plaintiff (Since Deceased) GOWRI (Appellant) as LR of Plaintiff SHANTHI (Respondent/ Defendant) PADMAWATHI (Respondent/ Defendant