In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated 12.06.2008 Coram The Honourable Mr.Justice S.J.MUKHOPADHAYA and The Honourable Mr.Justice R.SUBBIAH Original Side Appeal No.78 of 2008 and M.P.No.1 of 2008 1. V.Mohanan 2. V.Ramesh ..Appellants ..vs.. Estate of E.Narayanan rep. By his legal heirs 1. K.R.Omana 2. E.N.Ananda Prasad 3. E.N.Srinivasan 4. E.N.Priya 5. K.Thanikachalam 6. K.Gajendran ..Respondents in both Appeals Original Side Appeal filed against the order of the learned single Judge of this Court in Application No.5516 of 2007 in T.O.S.No.17 of 2001 dated 24.09.2007. For Appellants : Mrs.Chitra Sampath For Respondents : Mr.R.Thiagarajan JUDGMENT
R.SUBBIAH, J.,
This Original Side Appeal is filed as against the order dated 24.9.2007 passed by the learned Single Judge, allowing the Application No.5516 of 2007, filed by respondents 1 to 4 herein as third parties to implead them as defendant Nos.4 to 7 in Testamentary Original Suit No.17 of 2001 filed by the appellants herein against respondents 5 and 6.
2. The brief facts which are necessary to decide the issue involved in this appeal are as follows:
The appellants herein, who are the sons of one Venu Pandithar, initiated the proceedings in O.P.No.956 of 2000 under the Testamentary and Intestate jurisdiction of this Court for grant of Letters of Administration, pursuant to the Will dated 21.1.1976 executed by one Vaduvambal who had died on 23.1.1989. According to the appellants, the entire property situate at Municipal New Door No.725, corresponding to the Old No.271, Thiruvotriyur High Road, Chennai, originally belonged to the testatrix of the Will dated 21.1.1976 viz., Vaduvambal and her sister Padmavathi Ammal.
3. In an earlier partition suit proceedings conducted between the said Vaduvambal and her sister Padmavathi Ammal in O.S.No.3631 of 1961, a preliminary decree was passed by the II Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in I.A.No.3027 of 1974 based on a memo of compromise filed by the parties concerned in the connected appeal viz., A.S.Nos.532 of 1964 and 256 of 1965 before the High Court, Madras. The said preliminary decree was subsequently amended by an order dated 8.4.1991 by the II Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. As per the preliminary decree, Vaduvambal and Padmavathi Ammal are entitled to a half share each in the entire extent of the said property. The said Vaduvambal executed a Will dated 21.1.1976 in respect of her share in the property in favour of Venu Pandithar and the appellants herein. Since the final decree was passed in the partition suit, the said Vaduvambal continued to enjoy the entire property to the exclusion of Padmavathi Ammal till she died on 23.1.1989. Subsequent to the death of Vaduvambal, the appellants herein filed O.P.No.956 of 2000 under the testamentary and intestate jurisdiction of this Court for the issuance of Letters of Administration, annexing the Will dated 21.1.1976. That Original Petition was converted into T.O.S.No.17 of 2001 after the sister of Vaduvambal entered a caveat. Respondents 5 and 6 herein viz., K.Thanikachalam and K.Gajendran, who are the brothers of Padmavathi Ammal came on record in T.O.S.No.17 of 2001 by order dated 2.7.2003 passed in Application No.1214 of 2003 filed subsequent to the death of the said Padmavathi Ammal on 25.10.2002 leaving behind respondents 5 and 6 herein as her surviving legal heirs. While the matter stood thus, one E.Narayanan, who is the husband of the first respondent and father of respondents 2 to 4 herein had purchased property situate on the rear side of Old Door No.271, New Door No.725, Thiruvotriyur High Road measuring to an extent of 1273 sq. ft. with the superstructure thereon measuring about 245 sq. ft. from the brothers of late Padvamathi Ammal, who are respondents 5 and 6 herein for a consideration of Rs.12,50,000/- in and by virtue of a sale deed dated 14.7.2004.
4. Subsequently, after the death of said E.Narayanan, the respondents 1 to 4 herein as the legal representatives of the estate of E.Narayanan filed the application, viz., A.No.5516 of 2007 to implead them as defendant Nos.4 to and 7 in T.O.S.No.17 of 2001 contending that the appellants herein filed a civil suit in C.S.No.685 of 2004 on the file of this Court as against the respondents 5 and 6 for declaring the preliminary decree passed in the earlier partition suit between Vaduvambal and Padmavathi Ammal as null and void and consequently, for a declaration that the appellants herein have title to the suit property and also sought for an injunction restraining respondents 5 and 6 herein from interfering with their alleged peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property and since the respondents 1 to 4 had purchased a portion measuring 1273 sq. ft. with the superstructure thereon measuring 245 sq. ft. on the rear side of the subject property and as such they are having the cavetable interest in the subject matter of the testamentary proceedings and hence they are the proper and necessary parties for the proper conduct of the aforesaid testamentary proceedings along with respondents 5 and 6 herein, who are questioning the validity and genuineness of the impugned Will and thereby sought for a prayer of impleading the respondents 1 to 4 herein as defendants in T.O.S.No.17 of 2001.
5. Per contra, it was contended by the appellants herein by filing a counter that respondents 1 to 4 have no cavetable interest in the estate of the late Vaduvambal. Further, the deceased E.Narayanan claims to have purchased only the alleged share of the late Padmavathi Ammal from respondents 5 and 6 herein. So, the respondents 1 to 4, who are the legal representatives of the deceased E.Narayanan cannot claim a right or a share in the estate of the late Vaduvambal, which is the subject matter of the proceedings in T.O.S.
6. Further it was stated by the appellants herein that the said E.Narayanan had purchased the portion in the subject property from respondents 5 and 6 only during the pendency of the probate proceedings and, as such, they are not bona fide purchasers. Therefore, they cannot seek for an impleadment in the T.O.S. proceedings stating that they are having cavetable interest. In short, the main contention of the appellants is that E.Narayanan (since dead) had purchased only a portion belonging to the share of Padmavathi Ammal and not the share of Vaduvambal, which is the subject matter of the proceedings in T.O.S.No.17 of 2001. Secondly, the said E.Narayanan had purchased the portion of the property belonging to the share of Padmavathi Ammal, only when T.O.S.No.17 of 2001 was pending before this Court and as such there could not be any cavetable interest for respondents 1 to 4 entitling them to implead them as defendants 4 to 7 in T.O.S.No.17 of 2001 since they have no claim over the estate of late Vaduvambal.
7. The learned Single Judge, after hearing the arguments on the above said contentions of the parties of both sides, allowed the application filed by respondents 1 to 4 with a finding that it is always better that a third party who has accrued interest in the property however slight or remote, may be permitted to implead himself or themselves to avoid the multiplicity of proceedings, since the third party who purchased a property has no other option if he is not impleaded except to go for another suit which will result in multiplicity of proceedings. Aggrieved over the same, the present appeal has been filed by the legatees of the Will, who are the respondents 1 and 2 in the application filed by respondents 1 to 4, to implead them as defendants 4 to 7 in T.O.S.No.17 of 2001.
8. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the deceased E.Narayanan had purchased only the alleged share of Padvamathi Ammal from the subject property from respondents 5 and 6, whereas the present suit involves only the estate of Vaduvambal. In such circumstance, the issue of title of Vaduvambal in respect of the property purchased by respondents 1 to 4 cannot be decided in the testamentary proceedings, particularly when they are not claiming any share in the estate of Vaduvambal. Therefore, the contentions of respondents 1 to 4 that they are having cavetable interest in the T.O.S. proceedings cannot be accepted. Further, the learned counsel for the appellants took us through the averments made in the affidavit filed by the first respondent in support of the prayer to implead respondents 1 to 4 as defendants in T.O.S. and demonstrated that the portion of the property purchased by the late E.Narayanan, which belonged to the share of the late Padmavathi Ammal, has nothing to do with the estate of the late Vaduvambal, which is the subject matter of the T.O.S. Proceedings.
9. Further it was argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that in the probate proceedings, a caveator will not be entitled to raise title in himself to the whole or any part of the estate of the deceased. In support of the said contention, the learned counsel for the appellants relied upon the judgments reported in AIR 1975 MADRAS 330 in re N.Narasimhan and another. He also further relied on (1990) 3 SCC page 333 in the case of Elizabeth Anthony Vs. Michel Charles John Chown Lengera, in which judgment it has been clearly held that a caveator is not entitled to raise the dispute with regard to the dispute relating to the title of the estate of the deceased testator. That apart, the learned counsel for the appellants has also placed reliance on the judgment reported in 2007-4-L.W.755 in the case of Sunil Gupta Vs. Keran Girhotra and others, wherein it has been held that a transferee of a property during the pendency of a proceedings is not a necessary party. The citations are necessary to be made to only of those who, inter alia, claim through or under the Will or deny or dispute the execution thereof. The persons who purchase the property during the pendency of probate proceedings took the risk of the result of the probate proceedings and in a situation of such nature, he is not a necessary party. By placing reliance on the said judgment, the learned counsel for the appellants contended that in the instant case, the T.O.S.proceedings were initiated in the year 2001 itself, whereas the portion of the property belongs to the share of Padmavathi Ammal which is claimed to have been purchased by the deceased E.Narayanan on 14.07.2004. Hence, having taken a calculative risk in purchasing the property pending the T.O.S. proceedings, now the respondents 1 to 4, who are representing the estate of Narayanan, cannot be said that they are having cavetable interest in the proceedings. The learned Single Judge without dealing with these aspects, has allowed the application filed by respondents 1 to 4 to implead them as defendants 4 to 7 in the T.O.S. Proceedings.
10. Per contra, it was contended that if a party has a slightest doubt in the estate, he can seek for impleadment in the probate proceedings. So far as the present case is concerned, respondents 1 to 4 who are representing the estate of E.Narayanan, are not questioning the title of Vaduvambal in T.O.S. proceedings. However, in view of the suit filed by the appellants in C.S.No.685 of 2004 before this Court for a declaration declaring that the preliminary decree passed by the II Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in I.A.No.3027 of 1974 in O.S.No.3631 of 1961 through which decree, the testatrix of the Will dated 21.1.1976 viz., Vaduvambal and Padmavathi got their respective shares in the subject property, a doubt was raised in the mind of respondents 1 to 4 with regard to the portion of their property purchased from respondents 5 and 6 which is on the rear portion of the property of Vaduvambal. It was further contended that the nature of a probate proceeding is a proceeding in rem. Once the probate is granted, the same binds not only all the parties before the Court but also all the proceedings arising out of the Will or claims under or connected with it, thereby the learned counsel for the respondents contended that the result of the probate proceedings would adversely affect the interest of respondents 1 to 4, since the same being the judgment in rem. Therefore, they are necessary parties having a cavetable interest.
11. In support of the said contention, the learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the decisions reported in 2005 (2) CTC 262 (Ramani U. Krishnan Vs. Dr.Ammi Praveen Joshua @ Veena), 2008 (1) CTC 698 (Basanti Devi Vs. Raviprakash Ramprasad Jaiswal), (2005)12 SCC 154 (Manibhai Amaidas Patel and another Vs. Dayabhai Amaidas) and 2008 (4) SCALE 202 (Krishan Kumar Birla Vs. Rajendra Singgh Lodha and others.
12. Heard both the learned counsel in detail on the above said contentions.
13. As pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants that the portion of the property covered under the T.O.S. proceedings which belonged to the estate of Vaduvambal is totally different and has no connection with the property purchased by the deceased Narayanan. On going through the pleadings, it is clearly found that the subject property situated at Old door No.271, New door NO.725, Thiruvotriyur High Road, New Washermanpet, Chennai-81 which is totally measuring to a larger extent of 2641 sq.ft., and out of which, an extent of 1273 sq. ft. was allotted to the share of the deceased Padmavathi Ammal and the remaining 1368 sq. ft. was allotted to the share of Vaduvambal pursuant to the preliminary decree passed in I.A.No.3027 of 1974 in O.S.No.3631 of 1961 before the II Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. The deceased E.Narayanan purchased only 1273 sq. ft. from respondents 5 and 6 herein along with the superstructure measuring to an extent of 245 sq. ft. which is on the rear portion of the property. Hence from the above said facts, it is clear that the portion purchased by the said E.Narayanan is no way connected to the estate of Vaduvambal which is the subject matter of T.O.S. proceedings.
14. As contended by the learned counsel for the appellants, it is no doubt that the caveator is not entitled to raise a dispute with respect to the title of the property, but whereas according to the respondents, they have not disputed the title to the estate of Vaduvambal which is a subject matter of T.O.S. proceedings. On the other hand, the result of the probate proceedings would adversely affect the interest of respondents 1 to 4 over the portion of the property purchased by them. Since the appellants herein challenge the preliminary decree passed in I.A.No.3024 of 1974 in O.S.No.3631 of 1961 and by way of the civil suit viz., C.S.No.685 of 2004 before this Court through which Padmavathi Ammal and Vaduvambal got their respective shares from the respective property, since the judgment in the proceedings is in rem. While considering this argument of the learned counsel for the respondents, it should also be borne in mind that the deceased E.Narayanan had purchased the portion of the property from respondents 5 and 6 only much later after the initiation of the probate proceedings by the appellants herein, by which time the deceased E.Narayanan had an option whether the purchased property by him is concerned with the probate proceedings or not. Having taken a calculative risk to purchase the property during the pendency of the probate proceedings, now the respondents 1 to 4 who are representing the estate of E.Narayanan cannot claim to have cavetable interest. If the prayer of the impleadment of the persons, who had purchased the property during the pendency of the probate proceedings is allowed, it would open the flood gates for the non-bona fide purchasers to collude with the parties to the T.O.S. proceedings to oppose the claim of the plaintiffs.
15. In this regard, the judgment relied upon by the learned learned counsel for the appellants reported in 2007-4-L.W. 755 in the case of Sunil Gupta Vs. Kiran Girhotra and others purely applies to the facts of the present case. The relevant observation in the said judgment is as follows:
13. A transferee of a property during the pendency of a proceeding is not a necessary party. Citations are necessary to be made to only of those who, inter alia, claim through or under the Will or deny or dispute the execution thereof.
………..
17. Citation, as is well-known, should be conspicuously displayed on a notice board. Before purchasing the properties, Amit Pahwa and consequently the appellant had taken a calculated risk. In a situation of this nature, he is not a necessary party. He took the risk of the result of the probate proceedings. His apprehension that Raj Kuamr may not take any interest in the litigation cannot by itself a ground for interfering with the impugned judgment. It is speculative in nature.
16. The learned Single Judge, without looking into the above aspects, allowed and the application filed by respondents 1 to 4 only on the finding that if the application is not allowed and respondents 1 to 4 are not impleaded in the proceedings, it will amount to multiplicity of proceedings. Hence we are of the view that the order passed by the learned single Judge is liable to be set aside.
Accordingly the order dated 24.09.2007 passed in Application No.5516 of 2007 is hereby set aside and the appeal is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.is closed.
Index: Yes. (S.J..M,J.,) (R.S.H.J.,)
Internet: Yes. 12.06.2008
gl
S.J.MUKHOPADHAYA, J.,
and
R.SUBBIAH, J.,
gl
Pre-delivery judgment in O.S.A.No.78 of 2008
12.06.2008