K S MAHADEVAN Vs. MRS MEENAKSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is defendants' appeal under clause (15) of the Letters Patent read with Order 36, Rule 1 of the Original Side Rules challenging the legal validity of the judgment and the preliminary decree dated 3.5.1990 passed by the Honourable Mr. Justice Maruthamuthu in C.S. No. 45 of 1989.

(2.) THE respondents/plaintiffs had filed the suit for partition and possession of their 2/21 share in the properties mentioned in Schedules A and B of the plaint and for rendition of accounts of business mentioned in Schedule C of the plaint and separation and payment of their 2/21 share. It was alleged that the suit properties are the self-earned properties of K.S. Subramanian, who died on 25.1.1986. He had three sons Kunjithapatham, who predeceased him and is represented by the respondents/plaintiffs and the appellants K.S. Mahadevan and Ramani and four daughters viz., appellants 2, 3, 4 and 6. THE present respondents are the widow, son and daughter of Kunjithapatham. It was alleged that the respondents had earlier filed a Civil Suit No. 64 of 1970 in this Court for partition and possession of their share in the properties mentioned in the said suit. It was their claim in the said suit that those properties were joint family properties inherited by Subramaniam from his father and hence the respondents had a share in the same. THE appellants and Subramaniam however defended the suit and claimed that all the properties mentioned in the plaint of the said suit were self-acquisitions of Subramaniam. THE suit however ended in an agreement between the parties on 7.11.1977 and was decreed in terms of the said compromise. As a result of the said compromise decree the respondents were paid a sum of Rs. 75,000/- in full and final settlement of all their claims. THEir claims according to the respondents-plaintiffs included not only the share in the properties but they also claimed in relation to the arrears of salary and other service claims of Kunjithapatham. THE agreement, according to the respondents/plaintiffs fully establish that the properties now involved in the present suit were the self-acquired properties of Subramaniam. Since Subramaniam died intestate on 25.1.1986 leaving the suit properties they claim 2/21 share in the same and prayed for a decree. THE appellants filed their written statement and contested the said claim. THE admitted that the properties mentioned in the Schedules A and B of plaint belonged to late Subramaniam, but denied that the business in Schedule C had any connection with him. THE appellants further pleaded that the compromise decree passed in C.S. No. 64 of 1970 had settled the claim of the respondents/plaintiffs in the property of late Subramaniam who had consented to pay Rs. 75,000/- in full quit of all claims of the respondents. THE appellants therefore, submitted that the respondents/plaintiffs are estopped from making a claim over again. THEy also stated that their suit was barred by the principles of res judicata.

(3.) THAT the respondents are the legal heirs of Kunjithapatham who was the son of Subramaniam is not in dispute. It is therefore admitted that the respondents are the heirs under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act and entitled to succeed to the estate of Subramaniam along with the appellants who are his other heirs. The appellants have however submitted that the respondents having accepted Rs. 75,000/- in full settlement of all claims over the property of Subramaniam were not entitled to any share now. If the properties in question were self-earned properties of Subramaniam the respondents/plaintiff would have no interest or share therein during the lifetime. Indeed Subramaniam would be entitled to bequeathe or otherwise transfer the said property to anyone. In such a situation the right of the parties to the self-earned properties of late Subramaniam had arisen only when be had died intestate and leaving his self-earned property. This clearly indicates that there was not even are mote possibility on 7.11.1977 of any one inheriting estate of Subramaniam. It may also be kept in mind that the respondents had claimed those properties as the joint family properties and interest therein from the date of birth of Kunjithapatham. It may, therefore, be examined whether the compromise decree dated 7.11.1977 covers the claim of the respondents and thereby makes the present suit not only barred by res judicata but also devoid of substance. A perusal of the said decree would indicate that late Subramaniam was to pay Rs. 75,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree till realisation in full quit of all the claims of the plaintiffs including those items of houses described in the plaint Schedule VII. The agreement further provides that late Subraminam as the full owner of all the suit properties shall not alienate any of the same except for discharging the decree until the decree is discharged. The question requiring consideration is whether the phase "in full quit of all the claims of the plaintiffs" would include a claim of succession arising on the death of Subramaniam and in the event of his leaving some of the properties" The purpose of interpretation of a document is to ascertain the intention of the parties which has to be gathered not only from the language us ed but also from the context in which the agreement has been signed by the parties. In other words the text and context rule is the most appropriate rule for discovering the intention of the parties in such cases. As regards context it is apparent that there was a dispute between the parties about the true nature of the suit properties. The respondents had claimed that the suit properties are the joint family properties but late Subramaniam claimed that the properties were self-acquired. This dispute was settled on consideration of Rs. 75,000/- and hence it is not open to the respondents now to contend that the properties were joint family properties or that Kunjithapatham had interest in the said property from his birth. The claim on behalf of the respondents in that suit was as a legal representative of Kunjithapatham and not in relation to the right as a heir of Subramaniam. As regards their inheriting the estate of late Subramaniam they could not hope to do so on that date. Not only that there was no possibility of Subramaniam dying in the near future there was also no possibility of his leaving anything for being inherited by the respondents/plaintiffs. Under the circumstances, the claim in the present suit would not be within the contemplation of the parties on the date of the last agreement and, therefore, the said agreement could not cover the present claim. This interpretation would, therfore, make the principle of res judicata inapplicable. In this connection, it is also important to remember that the claim of the respondents/plainitiffs now is under section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act as heirs of Subramaniam. They are not claiming anything through Kunjithapatham. It may be that they are the heirs of Subramaniam only because they were related to late Kunjithapatham and the Hindu Succession Act makes them the heirs of Subramaniam only because of that relationship. In spite of it, the law creates a direct relationship between the respondents and Subramaniam and hence the nature of their claim now is different from the claim in the earlier suit. Because of this the earlier agreement could not have covered this claim. These reasons in our opinion are in addition to the reasons given by the learned single judge which need not be repeated.