RAJENDHIRAN versus MUTHAIAMMAL @ MUTHAYEE & ORS.

Citation: [2024] 1 S.C.R. 81 · Decided: 03-01-2024 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: VIKRAM NATH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

* Author
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 81 : 2024 INSC 12
Case Details
Rajendhiran
v.
Muthaiammal @ Muthayee & Ors.
(Civil Appeal No.37 of 2024)
03 January 2024
[Vikram Nath* and Rajesh Bindal, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in allowing the Second 
Appeal filed by the respondents and setting aside the concurrent 
judgments of the trial court and the Sub-Judge dismissing the suit 
of the respondents and decreeing the suit.
Headnotes
Suit – Suit for declaration – Decreed by the High Court – 
Sustainability of, when on perverse findings and ignoring 
relevant material findings – Suit by the respondent seeking 
declaration that the sale deed executed was null and void; 
that suit property belonged to the respondents and for relief 
of an injunction against the defendants, on the basis of 
an oral partition whereby property was bequeathed to the 
respondents whereas the defendants denied the oral partition 
– Suit dismissed by the trial court and subordinate court – 
However, the High Court allowed the second appeal relying 
on certain documents, to support the existence of an oral 
partition – Correctness:
Held: Trial court and the first appellate court dealt with the sale 
deeds, and found that those were not sufficient to prove the oral 
partition or in any manner establish the oral partition with respect to 
the survey number in question – High Court failed to consider the 
oral as also the documentary evidence – Only on the basis of the 
two sale deeds and one mortgage deed, which relate to different 
piece and parcels of land, the High Court recorded a perverse 
finding that oral partition had taken place – It also did not deal 
with the other findings recorded by the courts below – Thus, the 
impugned judgment cannot be sustained as it does not conform to 
the scope of s. 100 CPC as also it was perverse on appreciated 
evidence, and also ignored material evidence – Impugned judgment 
and order of the High Court is set aside and that of the trial court 
82
[2024] 1 S.C.R.
DIGITAL SUPREME COURT REPORTS
and the first appellate court is confirmed, dismissing the suit of 
the respondent. [Paras 12-15]
Other Case Details Including Impugned Order and 
Appearances
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.37 of 2024.
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.07.2022 of the High Court 
of Judicature at Madras in SA No.351 of 2021.
Appearances:
M. A. Chinnasamy, K. S. Gnanasambandan, Mrs. C. Rubavathi, 
C. Raghavendren, Saurabh Gupta, Ch. Leela Sarveswar, Vinod 
Kumar Teng, Manoj Kumar Chowdhary, V. Senthil Kumar, Advs. for 
the Appellant.
Judgment / Order of The Supreme Court
Judgment
Vikram Nath, J.
1.	
Leave granted.
2.	
This appeal, by the defendants, assails the correctness of the 
judgment and order dated 28.07.2022 of the High Court of Judicature 
at Madras whereby the Second Appeal No.351/2021 filed by the 
plaintiff was allowed and the concurrent judgments of the Trial Court 
and the Sub-Judge dismissing the suit of the plaintiff-respondents 
were set aside and the suit was decreed.
3.	
Facts in nutshell are :
3.1	 The respondent instituted a suit before the Munsiff Court, 
Tiruchengode registered as OS No.200/2011 claiming relief of 
declaration that the sale deed dated 10.02.2011 executed by 
the first defendant in favour of second defendant was null and 
void and to declare that suit property belonged to the plaintiffs 
and further for relief of an injunction against the defendants. 
3.2	 According to the plaint case, the property in question originally 
belonged to one Avinashi Gounder who had four sons namely, 
Arunachalam, Arumugam, Ramasamy and Palaniyappan. 
Plaintiff No.1 is the wife and plaintiff no.2 is the adopted 
son of Arunachalam. The first defendant is the daughter of 
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 
83
RAJENDHIRAN v. MUTHAIAMMAL @ MUTHAYEE & ORS.
Palaniyappan and the second defendant is the vendee of the 
suit property from defendant no.1.
3.3	 According to the plaintiffs, the four brothers had entered into 
an oral partition and the suit property came to the share of 
Arunachalam. Subsequently Arunachalam on 16.07.2003, had 
executed a will whereby the suit property and other properties 
belonging to Arunachalam were bequeathed in favour of the 
plaintiffs. Upon the death of Arunachalam on 30.04.2006, the 
plaintiffs became the absolute owners of the property in suit. 
Further case of the plaintiffs was that plaintiff no.2 and defendant 
no.2 were running a partnership business and the prop

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.