Padmanabhan Bhaskaran v. Paramu Sijatba

Appellant - first plaintiff 191 und 197 of 1977. 1st respondent in A.S.Nos.1A7, i>nramu Sujntlm, Komant•iUZhiknthu vcccln, Kannimcl Cherry, Qnilon Village. By Adv. Sri. Thayyil K.Vusuacvun. Rosponclonts - appellants - plai nttffs 2 to 4 and defendants. 4, Kunjuraman 'Thulasccdharan, Thulasimandirar, ?rakkulnthncberry, Thrikknruva Village.

2. injuraman Thankappan do, 00. 3, N y n 1 Savithri o d o

4. Krishnan Kcsavan 1Jongu1.nsscri l, Knyavnkkn thu vccdu, Prnlckulnthn ch<n·ry, 'l'hrikk~rnva Vi. llagc. 5, Krishnan Madhavan, Thovarzh'kathn Kizha!!ethil do cherry do.

6. Pudmnoabhan Blmsknran, M:arailnsscril Thoppil Vc:<:du, ¼:Uilon Village. Xannimcl Cherry,

7. PndmnnahHnn Padmnvat.hv Komnngnzhikuth Vcccln, Knnnimc1 Cherry, Qui lon Vt 1 lagc.

8. VoluyucHmn l'uramu uo .. do. 9, arama Vijay n o:£ Komuotazll iku thu vc ccJmjl Ka nnimc 1 Charry, Qnilon Village.

10. Porumu Goctuo of do. do.

11. Vurmnu Saboo of do. do. lly Aavs. M/s. P.C.Chacko, P.Krishnnmtborthy & M.Kri Ell nun Nuir. This second appcql having been heard on 6.12.1985,- the court on 17.12.1985 delivered th to1lowing (> .- r ... ~·-'-. / • "'£ 9 .isv;> ~ -- .~.- ,\ ;, r, - - _. ,..,..,t i 1,(J tr1e ,t?resoribed ierioi:.t of limitation. ~~ r defen.oa:nta 6 to 10 11.ad oeeu implea.ded in th.e course uf -.-.::ie The ru.ere fact that f: .,,i s~l.·~~ter the yosition as the relief pr~.Y•d for is to i\"fa~i,ale deeds executed in favour of defende.nta 1 to 3~ t~1em at the pax·t.r array. It is not f'>p&n to • defendants 6 ·to 10 who cli:1.im subsidiary r.igb.ts to pat forward tne plea of liro.i totion. Th.e sale deeds nave oeen declared to be void and tn.e ple3. 1,.1 t~era.io:t·e ur.rte!l.l:iol e. la a.rcy ~11iew of the watter the ~ccree o.f t!le trial court n.as only t.o be upheld. In the result tne dpeal is allowed. Tile decree of t.r.1.e lower a,t1 ...,ellate court is set. aside and t,n,a:t of' the trial court is x·estored. T'!'.le paz·ties are directed to suffer tne costs in the appeal. 17th December, 1935. Sd/-M.Fathima Beevi, Judge. ' \/Jr ) II true copy// Assistant Registrar. #r • is converted into a ten~c:, in cOUllJlon, as a re.;11.1lt of 'nnich. the aenbers of the undivided family secaae tenantsin coill.filon as if a parti.1oion !i&d--tek.en ,t1l&ce 8w.OUu t:1em. J..1oject to t:1.e eq,u.it..1 mort.ga.gors, tn.e suit io perfectlJ l.lt;tintainacle wl.d "~.1.e decree lo !lndouot.edli valid." ',;:.1ic:'l. arises in favour of t:i.e co ~aiu. in Sankaran ia.1£ v. Govinda 1982 K.L.2.348) it was trpoi.uted out that on account o.f' .a division. in sti;;?.tus ill'O~:-:..:,h.t c9at o st:sate whie hes cone into force aux±xiii ai'ter tb.e institution of th.e suit t~te l::\lieuee is not entitled to claihl t~ie stiare di.le \&-- :_?V w.eiaoer in the 1n tarwe..d who h.sd no alienable share o, the date the imaged sale deed wa:s executed. The provisions of ti:te ;:..ct are therefore er;;-lied only to workout the conflict bet.wecn the ,:1arties and uaoaldi:rl,S th1 relief hat can be granted in tnae Gd eircua.stances. Te trial 2oart was tacre;ore perfeevly justified in taus tric~'~ing t.r1e tt.rws.d a.a having oeen disr·upted entitling ttie plaintiffs to recover tneir all.are iu the suit,.prot'eJt\1es \ wit:1.out tenderi.r.ig the suit inc QU¥etent. Tne view neld y tae lower aellate court is clearly erroneous and cn.sot hold goo@·

4. lae Learned counesl for the respondents contenl ed that as a{;;ainst defeooant.s 6 to 10 wno had been ~_pleade~ in tae course of the trial. the ..,uit. is oarred by liU1.itat.ion. T:iis contention cannut oe 8.CGl:::.Jted. Tae suit na...l ueen filed viUlin <4. I 0r:J~ ,,, • • • upon t.n.e court to take uotioe of th.e events wh.ici'l aave ,1.Ji;.med since t..'1.e institution of th.e suit t.o raoulJ 1 t.s 1 decree acc:oJ:·ding· to oircwnstancee as they stSlld at the time wll.en th.e decree is made. Tile cow.·t is therefore oound -to consider the effect of t!l<.~-.nd in order to snorten the litigation and to do cora.j:'>lete justic~ bet.w·~en t!le i)artie~ iaOl..lld the reliefs th.at can be granted., 1·Jhen th.a plain.tiffs had thus by o.peretion o~ law become oor-ownera of the roerty, the rigat to recover tae property is aot lost altogether. By allowill!:, th.6lal \e recover the s~e which they would e entitled i9a partition has taken place, oei artias, so2la e graied in view of the cnaneed circa4staices, The alienees as no riat to claia s1are of the venooor and therefore has no aia to resist at4y sac a irection. Lo x·ecover his specific share in terns of tae ctr gagavan v» Aapag Pillai (1979 K.L.7.15) the effect af ct 30 0£ 1976 in pending lit.igation was considered. It was held t!lus:- 11There is nottu.Jlb in the Act to aQig&&t. that its operat.ion is ,_>rojeoted ooc1twards to take away rights wh.ich acct·ued in tne paat.. ;:;.4 shows \hat., as froui the date on .tiich the f.ct. caae into force, a joint tenanc.Y • • • • came into force on 1-12-1976 0111.Y provides tnat on e.nd after the coaenceaent of the Act, n.o riga't. to claim aey i.u"ierest in any _property of an ancestor during his oz her life-iue which is founded on the ere fact that the claimant was born in the faw.il.Y of the ancea'tor sriall be recognised in an;y caurt. Under Section 4 of the .Act all ;n.eiUoers of a joi.ut feqily holai au; joint fail¥ royerty shall witn effect from t.n.e date o:f coUllllencem.eut of the .Act be deemed to hold it as tenants-in-cC>ll.1.Won as if a partition atxbeenxtka of such pro.l,)erty per ca.vita _has taken place among all tae eaiers of tnae faily and as if each one of the members is holding h.is or h.er share searaely as full owner thereof. There ia a stetatory disruption oi the joint fail and thereafter each member shall be entitled to hold the propert.Y a~ a co-owner, e 'et is not retrospective in oeration, Grdina rily the decree in, e suit is granted ia the rig4ts of the \ perties us taey stand at the daje of its institution. wilere it is ah.own that t!le original relief claL.ted llas by rea;.;-;0.£1 of suoseq_aent change of circu..astancea oecOille inaL".i:'1.·opriat.e or tat it is necessisy to have the decision of the court on tne a.l te.x·ed cir cwast.a11.ces in orcier to sorten the litigation oz to do coulete justice oetween the parties, it is incuaoent • of 1376 and has therefore assed a paeliainasy @ecs-s declaring tae/gt±&iffta right for 4/5 shares atu allowie _plaintiffs• th.em ·to recover that sh.are with consei.:j_uent.ial relief;.;. Th.e lower ellate court has taken the vie that sucna a relief cannot be grs.nted without an ruaenctaent of the 11 plaiin:t, a.rui N that to pass a prelii:.1inary decree for partition in a suit o! th.is nature is a fatal er:toz·. T.lle aou:x•t, also said that the plclintiff caru..ot. bring a su'i t on· behalf of t.he \ha:vazh.i which , has become extinct by t3&-- operation of law. '.llle court also s-oid that to anend the suit a\ t.his stage for that purpose is an awae of the process of t.he court because t.ne plai.i:.1:tiffe he@ aaple op.ortunities after the passing of the Joint Pamiiy J_yst~lll Abolition Act of 1~76. Ill t.his view the II suit was held to be not Jis.inta inaBle. :}. The apellant has urged t..nat tb.e lower a;:;;.,ellate couit ia t.nus holdiiit; the sui\ as not, !46iinta1nable bas erred grievously. It h.aa oeen founo l.hat the two sale deeds exec1.1ted in resiiect of the plaint ites are invalid and the vlai.ritiff's are entitled to recover possession of tie proper¥ on a.voiding tne improper alienations, Recovery aas ueen sought for on behalf of t:ie \!18.ra'Vad· f,s on tlle dat.e -of the sit, 1at w saintainable, A }O o 1 9 7 0 which • / J 0 H.Fa.thima .Seevi, • (Pauper) Ttie 1st plaintiff is the apellant. fne suit «s ins ti tu t.ed o:, plaintiffs 1 to 4 for recoves:y of te suit p.:coperties after sett.ir:ig aaiae certain alienations. :Plaintiffs 1 to 4, tn.e children of (lefendant.s 4 an'1 :, cn.alleuged the validit.,'i or i~xts.M and A2~not Sll.t1rorted oy consideration end tha:t·avad -i:rr\arest. The trial court decreed tn.e suit set.ting aside the sale aeede at.Mi allowing tl:le {Ny- a0or6vo3s- · plaintiffa to recover possession4 In the appeal filed oy defendants 1 to 3 the,decree 0f the trial court wad set aside and the suit was dismissed. The a.,..,i:'ellate decree ia challenged by the 1st plaintiff ill ~his second AJ~eal.

2. T!le co:n:t,.rovera.)' is now limited t,o schedule item I ar..d 20 cents in item No.:,. Thlfiispgie in resect of item to. / !lad ce~n comproaised dlll"illg '\be ~ende?JCY of 1.ne suit. The f irlliing of tne trial court ibat tile sale deeds are invalid .ti.as oeen confired oy tae lower aelleate court. The trial court in granting the decree baS noticed the effect of Act 30