BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 24/04/2006 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.C.ARUMUGAPERUMAL ADITYAN A.S.(MD) No. 737 of 1991 Pappayee .. Appellant vs 1. Ammayappan 2. Ramasamy Gounder .. respondents This appeal is filed against the Judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.98 of 1985 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Karur dated 18.4.1990 !For appellant ... Mr.Govindarajan ^For respondents ... Notice served not appeared. :JUDGMENT
This appeal has been preferred against the decree and Judgment passed in
O.S.No.98 of 1985 on the file of Sub Court, Karur dated 18.4.1990. The plaintiff
in O.S.No.98 of 1995 is the appellant herein.
2. The short facts of the plaintiff’s case are as follows:
The plaintiff has filed a suit for Rs. 7,200/- towards past maintenance and
Rs.1,500/- towards apparels and Rs.200/- per mensum towards future maintenance
and another Rs.500/- towards clothing and another Rs.50,000/- to meet the
marriage expenses. The first defendant is the father of the plaintiff. After
the death of the mother of the plaintiff, the plaintiff as well as her brother
Sivasamy were under the protection of their maternal uncle Marappan. The
Plaintiff’s brother had filed a suit in O.S.No.735 of 1974 for partition of the
suit property and the same was also decreed in favour of the plaintiff’s brother
. At the time of delivery of possession, the first defendant along with his
friends and relatives prevented the plaintiff’s brother from taking possession
of the suit property by way of creating bogus documents. The first defendant,
who is the father of the plaintiff is a drunkard and he has not taken any steps
for conducting the marriage of the plaintiff. The maternal uncle of the
plaintiff has arranged the marriage of the plaintiff by spending huge amount.
Hence the plaintiff has filed a suit for recovery of the past and future
maintenance as well as the value of the jewels offered by the maternal uncle of
the plaintiff.
3. The first defendant in his written statement has contended that the
plaintiff is the daughter of the first defendant. The avements in the plaint
that the first defendant is a drunkard and has failed to maintain the plaintiff
are all not true and the first defendant has not created any document for the
purpose of this case. The first defendant is prepared to maintain the plaintiff
. Hence the claim for past and future maintenance cannot be allowed and the
payment of Rs.50,000/- towards the marriage expenses is also exorbitant and if
at all the plaintiff is entitled to any amount to meet the marriage expenses ,
it will not exceed more than Rs.1,500/- . There cannot be any charge in the
decree amount in respect of A schedule property because A” schedule property is
no more with the first defendant.
4. The second defendant in his written statement has contended that there
is no connection between the second defendant and the suit filed by the
plaintiff’s brother in O.S.No.735/1974. The second defendant had purchased 13
cents in Survey No.254 from the first defendant for the valuable consideration
of Rs 13,000/- on 23.3.1985. From that date onwards, the second defendant is in
continuous possession and enjoyment of the said property. There cannot be any
charge created in respect of the petition schedule Survey No.254 . Hence, the
suit is liable to be dismissed against the second defendant.
5. Before the trial Court, Exs P1 to P17 were marked and P.Ws1 to 3 were
examined on the side of the plaintiff and Exs D1 to D4 were marked and Dws 1
and 2 were examined on the side of the defendants.
6. After going through the pleadings, the trial Court has framed three
issues and one additional issue and decreed the suit awarding a sum of
Rs.30,000/- to meet the expenses of the marriage of the plaintiff and has also
created charge in respect of plaint “A” schedule property holding that the
second defendant is not a bonafide purchaser. Aggrieved by the findings of the
trial Court in O.S.No. 98 of 1995, the plaintiff has preferred this appeal in
A.S.No.737 of 1991.
7. The point for consideration in this appeal is as to whether the decree
and Judgment in O.S.No.98 of 1985 on the file of Sub Court, Karur is liable to
be set aside for the reasons stated in the memorandum of appeal in A.S.No.737 of
1991?
8. The point:
The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would contend that the learned
Trial Court ought to have awarded the future maintenance for the plaintiff, who
is none other than the daughter of the first defendant at the rate of Rs.200/-
per mensum and Rs.500/- per annum towards clothing. Admittedly, the plaintiff
got married on 29.10.1987 . Under Section 20 of the Hindu Adoptions and
Maintenance Act 1956, the obligation of a person to maintain his daughter till
her marriage,( Section 20(3)) runs as follows:
” The obligation of a person to maintain his or her aged or infirm parent or a
daughter who is unmarried extends in so far as the parent or the unmarried
daughter, as the case may be, is unable to maintain himself or herself out of
his or her own earnings or other property.”
In this case, there was no evidence let in on the side of the plaintiff to show
that even after her marriage, she was not able to maintain herself. Under such
circusmtances, the learned Subordinante Judge has dismissed the claim of the
plasintiff in respect of the future maintenance and rightly allowed the claim
for past maintenance till her date of the marriage. So, with regard to the
findings of the learned Subordinate Judge regarding the future maintenance, the
appeal is not sustainable.
9. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would contend that
without any reason, the learned Subordinate Judge has restricted the decree to
Rs.30,000/- only towards the plaintiff’s marriage expenses as to the claim of
Rs.50,000/-. The learned counsel would contend that even at paragraph 13 of the
Judgment, the learned Subordinate Judge has given a clear finding that as per
Exs A8, A9, the plaintiff has spent Rs.34,000/- for purchasing 17 sovereign of
gold arnaments at the time of her marriage, besides a ring and the plaintiff has
also produced Ex A2, A3, A5, and A11 to show that she has spent Rs 7937.30ps
towards marriage expenses and the plaintiff’s brother has also borrowed a sum of
Rs.20,000/- under Ex A15,A16 and A17 to meet the marriage expenses. So the total
marriage expenses under Exs A8, A9,A2,A3, A5 ,A11,A15, A16 and A17 comes to
Rs.61,937.30ps(Under Ex A8, A9 Rs.34,000/-, under Ex A2,A3, A5, A11
Rs.7,937.30ps, under Exs A15,A16 and A17, Rs.20,000/-= Rs.61937.30ps)
10. The earlier suit in O.S.No.735 of 1974 was filed by the brother of the
plaintiff for partition. The learned Subordinate Judge, Karur at Pargraph 13 has
observed that 11 years after the filing of the earlier suit in O.S.No.735 of
1974 by the brother of the plaintiff, the plaintiff has filed this suit only to
harass the first defendant and that it was represented on behalf of the first
defendant that the earlier suit filed by the brother of the plaintiff may be
taken into consideration and the marriage expenses may be allowed at a reduced
rate. That plea of the first defendant was considered by the learned Subordiante
Judge and that the marriage expenses was fixed as Rs.30,000/- brushing aside the
documentary evidence namely Exs. A8,A9,A2,A3, A5,A11, A15, A16 and A17 let in by
the plaintiff. Even though the plaintiff has produced the above mentioned
documents to the tune of Rs.61,937.30ps to show that she had incurred marriage
expenses, she has restircted to her claim toRs.50,000/-. Since there is no
valid reason given for decreeing the suit for a reduced sum of Rs.30,000/-, this
Court is of the view that the plaintiff is entitled to Rs.50,000/- as claimed by
her in the plaint, since she has proved the said claim of Rs.50,000/- through
the documentary evidence Exs A8,A9,A2, A3,A5, A11,A15, A16 and A17.
11.Hence I hold on the point that the decree and Judgment in O.S.No.98 of
1985 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Karur is liable to be set aside for
the reasons stated in the memorandum of appeal in A.S.No.737 of 1991. The point
is answered accordingly.
12. In the result, this appeal is allowed in part and the decree and
Judgment made in O.S.No.98 of 1985 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Karur
is modified and the plaintiff is entitled to a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards
marriage expenses. The decree and Judgment in other respects, is confirmed.
There will be a charge in respect of A”Schedule property for the entire
Rs.50,000/-. Time for payment of the decree amount is two months from the date
of receipt of this order. The appellant is entitled to her costs in the appeal.
Counsel fee is Rs.3000/- in the appeal.
sg
To
The Subordinante Judge
Karur.