SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

K.N.Subramanian (Died) … 1St vs N.Palaniappa Chettiar on 5 December, 2019

S.A.(MD).No.340/2008

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATE: 05.12.2019

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR

S.A.(MD).No340 of 2008
and
M.P.(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2008 and 1 of 2009

1.K.N.Subramanian (died) … 1st Appellant / Appellant / Plaintiff
2.RM.Soundaram
3.AR.Vasantha
4.Suba.Murugesan
5.KN.Valliammal
6.V.Saroja
7.S.Yegammai .. Appellants 2 to 7

(A2 to A7 brought on record as the LRS., of the deceased sole appellant
vide Court order dated 18.06.2013 made in M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2013 in
S.A.(MD)No.340 of 2008)
-Vs-

1.N.Palaniappa Chettiar
2.N.Rajarathinam (Died)
3.SP.Narayanan
4.Ayyappan
5.Vasantha
6.Nachiappan … Respondents 1 to 6 / Respondents
/ Defendants 1, 2 4 to 7
7.R.Kannan

1/10
http://www.judis.nic.in
S.A.(MD).No.340/2008

8.R.Murugappan
9.A.Jayasree
10.Amutha .. Respondents 7 to 10

(R7 to R10 are brought on record as LRS., of the deceased R2 vide
Court order dated 11.07.2018 made in M.P.(MD)No.2 of 2015 in S.A.
(MD)No.340 of 2008)

PRAYER: This Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil
Procedure Code, to set aside the judgment and decree dated 25.06.2007
made in A.S.No.35 of 2005 on the file of the District Court, Sivagangai,
confirming the judgment and decree dated 28.06.2005 made in O.S.No.
71 of 2003 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Devakottai.

For Appellants : Mr.S.Srinivasa Raghavan
For R1 R5 to R10 : Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan,
Senior Counsel,
For Ms.AL.Ganthimathi.
For R2 : Died
For R3 R4 : No Appearance

JUDGMENT

This Second Appeal has been filed against the concurrent

finding of the Courts below, dismissing the suit filed for partition.

2.The case of the plaintiff is that the suit property was

purchased by the adoptive father of the plaintiff on 23.01.1919. Hence,

the suit is filed, claiming partition of ¼ share in the schedule properties.

2/10
http://www.judis.nic.in
S.A.(MD).No.340/2008

The defendants denied the adoption and it is their contention that the

plaintiff has no connection to the defendants either by birth or

otherwise. The suit property is the joint family property.

3.Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court has framed

necessary issues. On the side of the plaintiff, three witnesses were

examined and Exs.A.1 to A.9 were marked. On the side of the

defendants, two witness were examined and Exs.B.1 to B.15 were

marked. On consideration of both oral and documentary evidence, the

trial Judge has found that the adoption is not proved and dismissed the

suit. The Appellate Court has also concurred the finding of the trial

Court. As against which, the present Second Appeal is filed.

4.At the time of admission of the Second Appeal, the following

substantial question of law was framed:-

“(i) Whether the judgment and decree of the
Court below is erroneous on account of its failure to
consider the factum of adoption in the light of the
Hindu Adoption and SectionMaintenance Act with particular
reference to the adoption which had taken place prior
to commencement of the said Act?”

5.During pendency of the Appeal, an application has also filed

to receive the additional documents to prove the so-called adoption.

3/10

http://www.judis.nic.in
S.A.(MD).No.340/2008

6.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and

the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 5 to 10.

7.It is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the

appellants that additional documents are absolutely necessary to prove

the adoption, wherein the sale deed of the year 1985, clearly indicates

that the adoptive father and others jointly executed the sale deed and

that itself proved the adoption. Besides, other documents sought to be

filed, also proved the adoption. Whereas, the learned Senior Counsel

appearing for the respondents 1 and 5 to 10 contended that absolutely

there are no pleadings whatsoever in the plaint, as to the nature of the

adoption, ceremonies, etc. Besides, genealogical tree filed along with

the plaint clearly indicates that the so-called alleged adoptive father is

having a grandson. Such being the position, even if the additional

documents are taken on record, adoption is invalid as per the Hindu

Adoption and SectionMaintenance Act and that cannot be a valid adoption,

even as per the old Act also. Such adoption is illegal and is not valid in

the eye of law.

8.Further, it is the contention of the learned Senior Counsel

appearing for the respondents 1 and 5 to 10 that the so-called adoptive

father had filed a suit in the year 1946 under Ex.B.1, wherein it was

4/10
http://www.judis.nic.in
S.A.(MD).No.340/2008

clearly admitted that the entire properties were already divided, except

some shares in Madurai Meenakshi Mills and Trichur Sitaram Spinning

and Weaving Mills, which were allotted to the adoptive father of the

plaintiff. Therefore, the question of claiming any share does not arise at

all, hence, prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

9.I have perused the entire plaint and pleadings and I answer

the substantial question of law.

10.In respect of the additional documents, now sought to be

filed, additional document No.1 is the certified copy of the sale deed

executed in the year 1985, wherein the plaintiff is shown as one of the

sons of Nachiappa Chettiar. Except that there are no other details with

regard to the adoption as mentioned in the document. Other documents

are the tax receipts issued by the local body and temples, wherein the

initial of the plaintiff shown as K.N. Before making out a case for

additional documents, the party seeking to produce additional evidence,

should establish that notwithstanding the exercise of due diligence,

such evidence was not within his knowledge or could not, after the

exercise of due diligence, be produced by him at the time when the

decree appealed against was passed.

5/10
http://www.judis.nic.in
S.A.(MD).No.340/2008

11.Further, it is also to be established under Order 41 Rule 27

C.P.C., that his document was refused to admit by the trial Court.

Unless the ingredients set out are satisfied as a matter of right, the

additional documents cannot be received in the Second Appeal stage,

though the Court has power to receive the documents, which enables

the Court to render proper finding. When the documents sought to be

filed are perused, except the sale deed of the year 1985, mentioning the

plaintiff as one of the sons of the Natchippa Chettiar, no other particular

whatsoever has been mentioned about the adoption. Further, the nature

of ceremony, when the adoption took place, has not been found in the

documents. Even assuming that the additional documents sought to be

filed are relevant to draw inference and presumption as to the nature of

the adoption, it is well settled that the adoption has to be proved in the

manner known to law. The adoption cannot be accepted, merely, on the

basis of the inference.

12.Even in the entire plaint and pleadings, absolutely there is

no whisper as to the date of adoption, nature of the ceremony and

persons, before whom adoption is given and who has seen such

adoption and the year of the adoption. Except evasive pleadings that he

was adopted, there are no pleadings whatsoever in the plaint. Besides,

genealogical tree filed along with the plaint clearly indicates that the so-

called adoptive father is admittedly having living grandchild. Such

6/10
http://www.judis.nic.in
S.A.(MD).No.340/2008

being the position, the adoption even assuming to be true, cannot be

valid in the eye of law, when the grandson is admittedly alive at the

relevant point of time. Such being the position, the reception of

additional documents will not serve any purpose and prove the

plaintiff’s case. Accordingly, the application filed for reception of

additional documents in M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2009, is rejected.

13.Now, with regard to the merits of the case, both the Courts

below found that the evidence adduced on the side of the plaintiff is not

established the factum of adoption. The suit itself filed in the capacity

of the adoptive son, claiming partition of the property. Ex.B.1 clearly

indicates that in the year 1946, the so-called adoptive father had stated

that the properties are divided in the family. Besides, the evidence

adduced on the side of the plaintiff will not prove any valid adoption.

Such being the position, the Courts below have rightly recorded the

finding and dismissed the case of the plaintiff. Accordingly, the

substantial question of law is answered against the appellants.

14.In the result, this Second Appeal is dismissed. No costs.

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

05.12.2019
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Myr

7/10
http://www.judis.nic.in
S.A.(MD).No.340/2008

To

1.The District Judge, Sivagangai.
2.The Subordinate Judge, Devakottai.
3.The Section Officer,
Vernacular Records,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.

8/10
http://www.judis.nic.in
S.A.(MD).No.340/2008

9/10
http://www.judis.nic.in
S.A.(MD).No.340/2008

N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
Myr

Judgment made in

S.A.(MD).No340 of 2008

05.12.2019

10/10
http://www.judis.nic.in

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation