THIRUNAVUKKARASU Vs. SANKARIAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ONE Manickathammal was the original owner of the property involved in both the appeals. Manickathammal has a son by name Thirunavukkarasu and a daughter by name Sankari Ammal. Sankari Ammal has two children, by name Valamburinadhan and minor Rathinamala. Sankari Ammal had a daughter by name Thamaraiselvi who died leaving behind her son minor Anbazhagan. Manickathammal and Thirunavukkarasu instituted the suit in O.S.No.390 of 1983 against Sankari Ammal seeking declaration and injunction. According to them, the suit property was the absolute property of Manickathammal and that the defendant Sankari Ammal surreptitiously obtained a gift deed from Manickathammal on 2.2.1982. Later, Manickathammal cancelled the gift deed by way of a registered document dated 10.2.1983 and on the same day, she had executed a gift deed in favour of her son Thirunavukkarasu. Manickathammal and Thirunavukkarasu sought for declaration of title to the property and also for an injunction restraining Sankari Ammal from interfering with their possession and enjoyment of the property.

(2.) SANKARI Ammal in turn, instituted a suit in O.S.No.246 of 1985. According to her, on 2.2.1982, Manickathammal had executed Ex.B-1 registered gift deed with her full willingness and volition where under she had given life estate to SANKARI Ammal and after her life, the property was to vest in the heirs of SANKARI Ammal, namely plaintiffs 2 and 3 and the fourth plaintiff, who happens to be the son of the predeceased daughter of SANKARI Ammal. According to SANKARI Ammal, at the time of execution of the gift deed, her brother Thirunavukkarasu was in possession of the property. On the date of gift, he had grown sugarcane corps in the property. Later, when SANKARI Ammal demanded possession of the property, a panchayat was held on 11.4.1982 wherein, Thirunavukkarasu agreed to vacate the lands and deliver vacant possession to SANKARI Ammal after harvesting the standing sugarcane crops. She had instituted the suit stating that her brother Thirunavukkarasu had not delivered possession of the property, but questions her title to the suit property. Therefore, she filed the suit in O.S.No.246 of 1985 seeking declaration of her possessory and absolute title to the suit property and also for possession from Thirunavukkarasu.

(3.) A careful reading of the plaint in O.S.No.390 of 1983 shows that even there, the plaintiffs have clearly pleaded that the gift deed was not a genuine document and on the very next day of execution and registration of the document, the appellant herein had issued a publication in a Tamil Daily to the effect that the gift deed was not executed by Manickathammal out of her free will and volition where as Manickathammal herself had sent Ex.B-7 notice through her counsel to the effect that Ex.B1 was executed out of her free will and volition. Further, the fact that the appellant had claimed title to the property by virtue of the gift deed executed by his mother after cancellation of Ex.B-1 by execution of Ex.A-21 document itself would go to show that he had admitted the genuineness of Ex.B-1 document. Be that as it may, when there is a clear and concurrent findings by both the courts below that Ex.B-1 is a true, valid and genuine document, I do not find any arguable matter left behind to be considered by this Court to upset the finding.