{"id":33531,"date":"2003-03-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2003-03-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/perianayagasamy-madrid-died-vs-marie-yvette-gisele-madrid-on-4-march-2003"},"modified":"2014-02-19T02:59:19","modified_gmt":"2014-02-18T21:29:19","slug":"perianayagasamy-madrid-died-vs-marie-yvette-gisele-madrid-on-4-march-2003","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/perianayagasamy-madrid-died-vs-marie-yvette-gisele-madrid-on-4-march-2003","title":{"rendered":"Perianayagasamy Madrid (Died) vs Marie Yvette Gisele Madrid on 4 March, 2003"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Perianayagasamy Madrid (Died) vs Marie Yvette Gisele Madrid on 4 March, 2003<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDATED: 04\/03\/2003\n\nCORAM\n\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.S.VENKATACHALAMOORTHY\nAND\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM\n\nA.S.No.891 of 1987\nand\nCMP Nos.13815\/97 and 5560\/98\n\nPerianayagasamy Madrid (died)\nrep. by his Legal Representative\nSwapna Ghosai                                   .. Appellant\n\n-Vs-\n\n1. Marie Yvette Gisele Madrid\n2. Iven Manjin Madrid\n3. Marie Loudes Rosalie Madrid\n4. Marie Reneline Francoise Madrid\n5. Marie Antonie Francois\n   Alphonse Madrid\n(Respondents 2, 3 & 5 represented\nby Power of Attorney namely R1\nMarie Yvette Gisele by order\nof Court dt.23.10.1988 in CMP\n16738\/88)                                               .. Respondents\n\n        This appeal suit has been preferred under S.96 of The  Code  of  Civil\nProcedure  against  the  judgment  and  decree of the I Additional Subordinate\nJudge, Pondicherry made in O.S.No.263 of 1982 and dated 31.8.198 7.\n\n!For Appellant :  Mr.M.S.Umapathy\n\n^For Respondents :  Mr.T.P.Manoharan\n\n:JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.\n<\/p>\n
        The plaintiffs are the appellants herein.\n<\/p>\n
        2.  This appeal is directed against the judgment  and  decree  of  the
\nlearned  I  Additional  Subordinate  Judge,  Pondicherry whereby the claim for
\npartition made by the plaintiffs was rejected.\n<\/p>\n
        3.  The plaintiff Periyanayagasamy Madrid  filed  the  suit  with  the
\nfollowing averments:\n<\/p>\n
        The  plaintiff  who  was  working  in  the  Military  at France, after
\nretirement, came to Pondicherry and purchased the suit property in the name of
\nhis wife Amalorpava Madrid on 21.9.1939.  He paid the sale consideration.   He
\nis having  three daughters and two sons, the defendants herein.  His wife died
\non 28.4.1961.  He had been in peaceful possession and enjoyment  of  the  suit
\nproperty.   He leased out the first floor of the suit property to one Benugoal
\nGhosai.  After the death of his wife, he married  Regina  Marie.    The  first
\ndefendant  forced  him  to  convey  his  entire share in her favour, which was
\nrefused by him.  The first defendant beat him.   A  complaint  was  lodged  to
\nS.H.O., Grand  Bazaar,  Pondicherry on 6.2.1982.  The first defendant admitted
\nher illegal acts.  The husband of the first defendant Arpudasamy Thalli at her
\ninstigation was threatening to kill him.    Because  of  the  misunderstanding
\nbetween him and his daughter, the first defendant, it became necessary for him
\nto  get his share divided absolutely, and hence, he is constrained to file the
\nsuit.  Under French Law, he is entitled to an  absolute  and  exact  one  half
\nshare.  In the remaining half share, he being the husband of Amalorpava Madrid
\nis entitled  to  1\/4th share.  The defendants are entitled to 1\/5th share each
\nonly from 3\/4th in the half share of the suit property.  He sold his undivided
\nshare in the suit property to Swapna Ghosai by a sale deed dated 22.12.82.  He
\ndied on 28.2.83.   She  filed  I.A.No.1056\/83  to  implead  herself  as  legal
\nrepresentative of  the  plaintiff.   The application was allowed, and as such,
\nshe is the plaintiff in the suit.  She is entitled for the share as asked for.
\nHence, the suit may be decreed in her favour.\n<\/p>\n
        4.  The defendants 1, 2 and  5  filed  a  written  statement  and  two
\nadditional written statements denying various allegations in the plaint.  They
\nwould  state  that  they  are  the  children  of  the plaintiff; that the suit
\nproperty was purchased in the name of the wife of the plaintiff from  and  out
\nof  her  own  funds;  that  till  date  it  stands in her name; that the first
\ndefendant is residing along with  her  husband  in  the  suit  property  as  a
\nco-owner  from 1978; that it is true that the plaintiff has got half the share
\nin the suit property, but he cannot have any  usufructuary  right  over  1\/4th
\nshare  in  the  remaining  share  of  the suit property; that the claim of the
\nplaintiff in that regard is ill founded; that the defendants 1, 2 and  5  have
\nno  objection  for  partition  of  the  suit  property and + share in the suit
\nproperty alienated to the plaintiff and for the other half share being divided
\ninto five shares and 1\/10 share alienated to each defendant herein;  that  the
\nplaintiff  had  already threatened the defendants that he would proceed in the
\nname of his second wife and purchase properties in  her  name  to  defeat  the
\nrights  of the defendants; that the plaintiff should be restrained by an order
\nof permanent injunction from alienating his + share; that  the  plaintiff  had
\nmortgaged the  suit  property  to  Sri  B.N.    &  Sons and received a loan of
\nRs.12,250\/-, and therefore, he is responsible to pay back the  debt  from  and
\nout  of  his  +  share,  and the said mortgage will not bind the shares of the
\ndefendants in the suit property; that the fifth defendant had paid  Rs.5,000\/-
\nto  the  mortgagee at the request of the plaintiff; that under the French Code
\nCivil, third party purchasers of  the  co-owners,  i.e.    plaintiff  and  the
\ndefendant,  can be excluded from participating in the partition along with the
\nremaining heirs by paying the price of the shares that  they  have  purchased;
\nthat  in  case  any  of the defendants or the plaintiff had already sold their
\nshares to third parties, the defendants 1, 2 and 5 are  prepared  to  purchase
\nsuch  shares;  that  they may be included as defendants in order to enable the
\nCourt to adjudicate the issue effectively; that the defendants 1, 2 and 5  are
\nentitled  to their shares in the rental incomes of the suit property; that the
\ntenant may be directed to pay the municipal tax arrears and deposit the future
\nrents into the Court; and that a preliminary decree for partition of 1\/5 share
\nto each of the defendants 1, 2 and 5 and for separate possession of  the  same
\nafter  the  final decree may be passed, and the plaintiff should be restrained
\nby an order of permanent injunction from alienating his + share  in  the  suit
\nproperty.\n<\/p>\n
        5.   The  defendants 1, 2 and 5 would further state that the plaintiff
\nwho is a third party stranger, cannot participate in the partition; that since
\nthe defendants 1, 2 and 5  sought  for  a  counter  claim  for  partition  and
\npermanent  injunction,  the  alleged  transfer  of  the  suit  property by the
\ndeceased plaintiff in favour of the present plaintiff is not valid and binding
\nagainst  them;  that  Swapna  Ghosai  was  a  stranger  to   the   family   of
\nPeriyanayagasamy  Madrid;  that  she  has  no  right to claim partition in the
\nestates of the deceased Periyanayagasamy Madrid; that  the  said  transfer  is
\nfraudulent,  collusive  and  effected  only to defeat the lawful rights of the
\ndefendants; that it is also hit by S.52 of the Transfer of Property Act;  that
\nshe ought to have valued the suit at Rs.30,000\/-; that she cannot continue the
\npartition  suit in the place of deceased plaintiff; and hence, the suit may be
\ndismissed and the counter claim be ordered.\n<\/p>\n
        6.  The plaintiff filed a reply  statement  alleging  that  after  the
\ndeath  of  Periyanayagasamy  Madrid, the claim for usufructuary right has been
\ngiven up by way of amendment; that the reliefs sought for  by  the  defendants
\nare  not properly valued; that the claim for injunction made by the defendants
\nis infructuous; that the sale deed executed by Periyanayagasamy Madrid  itself
\ntestifies  the  fact of his indebtedness; that she has been living in the suit
\nproperty from 22.12.1982; and hence, the counter claim made by the  defendants
\nhas to be rejected.\n<\/p>\n
        7.   The  trial  Court  framed  the  necessary issues, tried the suit,
\nrejected the claim of the plaintiff and  decreed  the  counter  claim  of  the
\ndefendants.  Aggrieved plaintiff has brought forth this appeal.\n<\/p>\n
        8.   The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that
\nthe judgment of the lower Court is not  sustainable  in  law;  that  the  suit
\nproperty  was  purchased in the name of Amalorpavamarie Madrid from and out of
\nthe monies of  her  husband  Periyanayagasamy  Madrid;  that  Periyanayagasamy
\nMadrid  and  Amalorpavamarie  Madrid  who were renounced their Indian personal
\nstatus and opted for French Civil Code for purposes  of  personal  laws,  were
\nrenocants;  that  the  property  formed  part  of  the assets of the community
\nbetween the husband and wife as per the French Civil Code;  that  they  became
\nco-owners  of  the  suit property having undivided half share each; that it is
\npertinent to note that under Article 441 of the French Civil Code, a community
\nis dissolved interalia by death; that after the dissolution of the  community,
\nproperty   should   be   divided   equally   between   the  parties  or  their
\nrepresentatives; that after the death of Amalorpavamarie Madrid on  28.4.1961,
\nthe  property  became divisible equally between Periyanayagasamy Madrid on the
\none  part  and  the  representatives  of  Amalorpavamarie  Madrid  namely  the
\ndefendants  1  to  5  on the other part; that there were strained relationship
\nbetween the parties; that the pension received by Periyanayagasamy Madrid  who
\nwas  a  retired Officer of the French Army, was not sufficient to maintain his
\nstandard of living, and hence, he mortgaged his undivided half  share  in  the
\nsuit  property to the appellant on 19.1.1982; that while the suit was pending,
\nPeriyanayagasamy Madrid sold his undivided half share  to  the  appellant  for
\nKrs.30,000\/-  against  which an amount of Rs.19,650\/- was adjusted against the
\nmortgage amount and the interest, and the remaining Rs.10,350\/-  was  paid  in
\ncash; that  on  the  death of Periyanayagasamy Madrid, the purchaser viz.  the
\nappellant filed an application for impleading her as the legal  representative
\nof  Periyanayagasamy  Madrid,  which was allowed; that when Article 513 of the
\nFrench Civil Code which relates to appointing a court advisor for a person who
\non account of his prodigal acts squanders his father’s estate,  has  not  been
\npleaded  nor  was  there any prayer appointing an advisor, the lower Court was
\nnot correct in relying on the said Article; that though the respondents raised
\nan objection that the suit for partition is not maintainable  as  per  Article
\n841  of  the French Civil Code, no objection was raised before the trial Court
\nwith regard to the maintainability of the suit; that it is pertinent  to  note
\nthat the trial Court has not given any finding to that effect while dismissing
\nthe  suit;  that  Article  841  is  applicable  only when the transfer is by a
\nco-heir; that in the instant case,  the  deceased  plaintiff  Periyanayagasamy
\nMadrid was only a co-owner and not a co-heir; that it has to be noted that the
\nsale  of  share  is  also  permissible under Article 1129; that as per Article
\n1131, even the reasons given by Periyanayagasamy Madrid is false, it will have
\nno effect; that under Article 1132, the  reasons  for  transfer  need  not  be
\nexpressed in the sale deed; that since the deceased plaintiff Periyanayagasamy
\nMadrid  became  the  absolute  owner  with  regard  to  half share in the suit
\nproperty, the sale under Ex.A6 in favour of the appellant  is  valid  in  law;
\nthat  when  the defendants have come forward with a plea stating that Ex.A6 is
\nobtained by fraud, coercion and undue influence, they have to establish  their
\ncase,  but  in the instant case, they have miserably failed to prove the same;
\nthat the plaintiff is entitled to half share in the suit  property;  that  the
\ntrial  Court has not considered the entire evidence both oral and documentary,
\nand hence, the judgment and decree of the lower Court have got to be set aside
\nand the suit be decreed in favour of the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
        9.  The learned Counsel appearing for the respondents would argue that
\nthe trial Court has well considered the evidence both oral  and  document  and
\nhas found that the plaintiff was not entitled to the relief asked for; that it
\nis  pertinent  to  note  that  the  suit  house has become the property of the
\ncommunity in view of the provisions under Article 1401(3) and 1402  of  French
\nCivil Code; that the husband was entitled to half share therein as a member of
\nthe community; that in view of Article 1476, the members of the community viz.
\nPeriyanayagasamy  Madrid  and  Amalorpavamarie  Madrid  had to divide the suit
\nhouse subject to all rules  affecting  partition  between  the  co-heirs  more
\nparticularly, as  to  warranties  which  arise  i.e.   not to allow a stranger
\npurchaser of a share to participate in the partition; that it is pertinent  to
\nnote  that  as  per  Article  841,  except  the  legal  heirs, no other person
\nincluding a relative, who purchased a share from a legal heir, is entitled  to
\nseek  for  partition; that at best, such person is entitled only for refund of
\nthe sale price paid by him; that the appellant who is a stranger purchaser  of
\nundivided  share in the suit property, is entitled only for refund of the sale
\nprice allegedly paid by her; that under French Law, father is  the  ab  solute
\nowner  of  the  property  acquired  by  him  and he can transfer his share for
\nconsideration; that in view of the position of law made in a decision reported
\nin 2002 (3 ) LW 669, the respondents can  question  the  sale  made  by  their
\nfather  as  a  sham  transaction  and  it  brought brought about due to mental
\nweakness; that Periyanayagasamy Madrid who was 82 years old,  could  not  have
\nsufficient mental strength as on the date of sale; that the sale consideration
\nfound  under  the  document is very low; that the appellant has not proved the
\npayment of sale consideration;  that  the  reason  for  sale  adduced  by  the
\nappellant is false; that Periyanayagasamy Madrid was not in need of money, and
\nthus,  there  is no necessity for him to sell the property; that there are lot
\nof suspicions over the genuineness and  validity  of  the  sale;  that  it  is
\npertinent  to  note  that the appellant has also not prayed for declaration of
\nher title based on the sale deed and proved the same; that for these  reasons,
\nthe  judgment  of  the  trial Court has got to be sustained, and the appeal be
\ndismissed.\n<\/p>\n
        10.  A civil action seeking for a decree  of  partition  in  the  suit
\nmentioned house property was originally filed by Periyanayagasamy Madrid.  The
\nsame  was  contested  by  the defendants who were none other than his children
\nthrough his wife.  Pending the suit, he executed a sale  deed  in  respect  of
\nhalf  share in the entire property in favour of Smt.Swapna Ghosal, who filed a
\npetition on the death of Periyanayagasamy Madrid, the original  plaintiff  for
\nimpleadment of  herself  as  his  legal representative.  The said petition was
\nallowed.  Thus, she has prosecuted the suit  seeking  partition  of  her  half
\nshare to the suit property.  The defendants who were given opportunity to file
\nadditional written statements also, interalia would contend that the sale deed
\nthat  was  executed  by Periyanayagasamy Madrid in favour of Swapna Ghosal was
\nnot valid, since Periyanayagasamy Madrid  was  not  the  absolute  owner  with
\nregard  to  the  half share in the suit property, and he was restrained by the
\nprovisions of the French Civil Code from making any alienation; that the  sale
\ntransaction  was not supported by consideration; that the sale was obtained by
\nfraud, coercion and undue influence, and apart from that, the reasons  adduced
\nin the sale deed were false.\n<\/p>\n
        11.  Admittedly Periyanayagasamy Madrid married Amalorpavamarie Madrid
\non 24.9.1928.    The  defendants 1 to 5 were the children born out of the said
\nwedlock.  The said couple renounced their Indian personal status and opted for
\nFrench Civil  Code  for  purposes  of  personal  laws,  and  thus,  they  were
\nrenocants.   The  suit  property  was  purchased  on  19.9.1939  under Ex.A2 a
\nnotarial sale deed.   The  said  Amalorpavamarie  Madrid  died  on  28.4.1961.
\nPeriyanayagasamy  Madrid was serving in French Army, and on his retirement, he
\nsettled with other members of the family at Pondicherry.  After the  death  of
\nhis first  wife,  he married Regina Marie, who was living at Pondicherry.  The
\nrelationship between Periyanayagasamy Madrid and his children, the  defendants
\nherein, became  strained.    Under  such  circumstances,  he  filed a suit for
\npartition claiming half share in the suit property.    Pending  the  suit,  he
\nexecuted  Ex.A6  a  registered sale deed on 22.12.1982 in respect of undivided
\nhalf share in the suit property to Smt.Swapna Ghosal.  Periyanayagasamy Madrid
\ndied on 28.2.1983.  The alienee under Ex.A6 namely Smt.Swapna Ghosal filed  an
\napplication  and  sought for the permission of the Court to prosecute the suit
\nby impleading herself as the legal representative of the said Periyanayagasamy
\nMadrid.  Despite contest, the said application was allowed, and thus, she  has
\nprosecuted the  suit  seeking  for  half  share  in  the  suit  property.  The
\ndefendants interalia raising all the above defence have also  made  a  counter
\nclaim stating that they were entitled to 1\/5th share each in the suit property
\nalong with permanent injunction.\n<\/p>\n
        12.   It  was  specifically  averred in the plaint originally filed by
\nPeriyanayagasamy Madrid that the suit property was purchased out  of  his  own
\nfunds, but  in the name of his wife.  On the contrary, it was contended by the
\ncontesting defendants that the suit property was  purchased  by  their  mother
\nAmalorpavamarie out  of  her funds.  Both these contentions do not require any
\nconsideration in view of the provisions of the French  Civil  Code  as  stated
\nabove.  Admittedly,  they  were renocants and governed by the French Law.  The
\nsuit property was  purchased  on  19.9.1939  during  the  subsistence  of  the
\nmarriage between Periyanayagasamy Madrid and Amalorpavamarie.  Article 1402 of
\nthe French Civil Code reads thus:\n<\/p>\n
“All  immovables  are  assumed  to be purchased by the community which are not
\nproved to have been either the property of or to have  been  in  husband’s  or
\nwife’s legal possession before the marriage….”\n<\/p>\n
Thus,  the  property  belonged to the community consisting of Periyanayagasamy
\nMadrid and Amalorpavamarie, and each was  entitled  to  half  share.    It  is
\npertinent  to  point  out  at  this juncture that the defendants 1, 2 and 5 in
\ntheir written statement have  well  admitted  the  share  of  Periyanayagasamy
\nMadrid by stating that he was entitled to 50% of the suit property, and hence,
\nPeriyanayagasamy  Madrid  was entitled to the half share in the suit property,
\nas claimed by him in the plaint.\n<\/p>\n
        13.   The  present  plaintiff  Periyanayagasamy  Madrid  has   claimed
\npartition in respect of the half share on the basis of a sale deed executed by
\nhim  in respect of his undivided half share under Ex.A6 for a consideration of
\nRs.30,000\/-.    The   first   contention    that    was    raised    by    the
\nrespondents\/defendants is that  the  alienee  under  Ex.A6  viz.  Smt.  Swapna
\nGhosal cannot maintain a suit for partition against the defendants, and if  at
\nall she had got any claim in the property, she has to work out the remedy by a
\nseparate suit.    It is pertinent to note that no such objection was raised by
\nthe defendants before the trial Court, nor was there any finding by the  Court
\nbelow in  that  regard.    In support of their contention, they much relied on
\nArticle 841 of the French Civil Code which reads thus:\n<\/p>\n
“Any person who is not a heir can be prevented by the co-heirs  or  anyone  of
\nthem  from  taking part in the partition, even though he may be related to the
\ndeceased, although he is a person to whom a co-heir has transferred his  right
\nto the succession.”\n<\/p>\n
A  careful  reading of the above provision would make it abundantly clear that
\nthis stance that was raised by the defendants cannot stand.  It is  true  that
\nthe  alienee  under  Ex.A6 was not a heir either to Periyanayagasamy Madrid or
\nhis wife Amalorpavamarie.  But, the defendants who are  the  heirs,  can  well
\nprevent  the  plaintiff from taking part in the partition, only if there was a
\ntransfer of an interest by a co-heir in respect of his right to succession  to
\nthe alienee.   In the instant case the suit property belonged to the community
\nof Periyanayagasamy Madrid and Amalorpavamarie  Madrid,  and  thus,  each  was
\nentitled to   an   undivided   half  share  in  the  suit  property.    Hence,
\nPeriyanayagasamy Madrid was only a co-sharer and not a co-heir.  It remains to
\nbe stated that under Article 1441 of the French Civil Code, a  community  gets
\ndissolved  interalia  by  death,  and thus, on the death of Amalorpavamarie on
\n28.4.1961, the community of the said couple got dissolved, and  the  property,
\nno  doubt, became divisible equally between Periyanayagasamy Madrid on the one
\nside and the legal representatives of Amalorpavamarie  Madrid  on  the  other.
\nThus,  the  Court  is  unable  to  notice any legal impediment for the present
\nplaintiff asking for a partition on the strength of Ex.A6 sale  deed  executed
\nby Periyanayagasamy Madrid in her favour.\n<\/p>\n
        14.   The sale deed under Ex.A6 executed by Periyanayagasamy Madrid in
\nfavour of the present plaintiff  viz.    Smt.Swapna  Ghosal  was  assailed  on
\ndifferent grounds.   It was specifically averred by the respondents’ side that
\nthe same was obtained by fraud, coercion and undue influence.  Needless to say
\nthat a duty was cast upon the defendants who put forth a plea that Ex.A6  sale
\ndeed  was  not  valid,  since  it  was tainted with anyone of the invalidating
\nfactors, to prove the same.  But, the  defendants  have  miserably  failed  to
\nprove the said plea.\n<\/p>\n
        15.  Relying on Article 513 of the French Civil Code, it was contended
\nby  the  respondents’  side  that  the prodigals are forbidden to alienate the
\nproperty, and in the instant case, the sale was not valid, since  the  father,
\nwho  was  a  party  to  the suit, has executed the sale deed on account of his
\nprodigal acts.  The Court is unable to see any  force  in  this  stance.    It
\nremains  to  be stated that Article 513 of the French Civil Code is related to
\nthe appointment of a Court Adviser  for  a  person,  who  on  account  of  his
\nprodigal acts,  squandered  his  father’s estate.  Nowhere the defendants have
\nput forth such a plea in the written statement.  In the  absence  of  specific
\npleading to  that  effect,  the said contention cannot be countenanced.  Apart
\nfrom that, no material worth-mentioning was placed by the defendants  to  hold
\nthat he  was  committing  prodigal  acts.   Admittedly Periyanayagasamy Madrid
\nafter the death of his first wife married Regina Marie  and  was  living  with
\nher.   During the relevant period Periyanayagasamy Madrid was not employed nor
\nhad he  any  source  of  income  except  the  monthly  pension.    Under  such
\ncircumstances, the lower Court was not correct in stating that he had no legal
\nnecessity for entering into such a sale transaction.  It has to be pointed out
\nat  this  juncture  that  Periyanayagasamy Madrid mortgaged his undivided half
\nshare in the suit  property  under  a  registered  deed  in  consideration  of
\nRs.18,000\/-  even  before  filing  of  the  suit, and thus, at the time of the
\nexecution of sale, only a sum of Rs.10,350\/- was paid in cash to  the  vendor,
\nafter adjusting  Rs.19,650\/- towards the mortgage debt.  Considering the above
\ncircumstances and the fact that Periyanayagasamy Madrid was aged 80 years that
\ntime, it can well be inferred that he should have sold the property pressed by
\nnecessities, and hence, it cannot be stated that he had alienated the property
\nunder Ex.A6 sale deed without the personal necessity.  This Court is unable to
\nsee any merit in all the contentions put forth by  the  defendants.    Without
\nproper  appreciation  of  the position both factual and legal, the lower Court
\nhas taken an erroneous view and has dismissed the suit, which has  got  to  be
\nnecessarily set aside for the reasons stated above.  Therefore, the plaintiffs
\nare  entitled  to  half share in the suit property as asked for in the plaint,
\nwhile the defendants 1, 2 and 5 are entitled to 1\/5th share each in  the  suit
\nproperty as asked for in their counter claim.\n<\/p>\n
        16.   In  the  result,  this appeal suit is allowed, setting aside the
\njudgment and decree of the trial Court.  A preliminary decree is granted  both
\nin the suit and in the counter claim in respect of half share of the plaintiff
\nand  1\/5th share of each of the defendants 1, 2 and 5 respectively in the suit
\nproperty.  In other  respects,  both  the  suit  and  the  counter  claim  are
\ndismissed.  Costs  in  the  suit  is ordered.  The parties will bear their own
\ncosts both in the appeal and in the counter claim.    Consequently,  connected
\nCMPs are closed.\n<\/p>\n
Index:  Yes
\nInternet:  Yes<\/p>\n
To:\n<\/p>\n
1.  The I Additional Subordinate Judge,
\nPondicherry.\n<\/p>\n
2.  The Record Keeper
\nV.R.Section
\nHigh Court,
\nMadras.\n<\/p>\n
nsv\/<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Perianayagasamy Madrid (Died) vs Marie Yvette Gisele Madrid on 4 March, 2003 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 04\/03\/2003 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.S.VENKATACHALAMOORTHY AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM A.S.No.891 of 1987 and CMP Nos.13815\/97 and 5560\/98 Perianayagasamy Madrid (died) rep. by his Legal Representative Swapna Ghosai .. Appellant […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-33531","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nPerianayagasamy Madrid (Died) vs Marie Yvette Gisele Madrid on 4 March, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/perianayagasamy-madrid-died-vs-marie-yvette-gisele-madrid-on-4-march-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Perianayagasamy Madrid (Died) vs Marie Yvette Gisele Madrid on 4 March, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/perianayagasamy-madrid-died-vs-marie-yvette-gisele-madrid-on-4-march-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2003-03-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-02-18T21:29:19+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"20 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/perianayagasamy-madrid-died-vs-marie-yvette-gisele-madrid-on-4-march-2003#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/perianayagasamy-madrid-died-vs-marie-yvette-gisele-madrid-on-4-march-2003\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Perianayagasamy Madrid (Died) vs Marie Yvette Gisele Madrid on 4 March, 2003\",\"datePublished\":\"2003-03-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-02-18T21:29:19+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/perianayagasamy-madrid-died-vs-marie-yvette-gisele-madrid-on-4-march-2003\"},\"wordCount\":3830,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/perianayagasamy-madrid-died-vs-marie-yvette-gisele-madrid-on-4-march-2003#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/perianayagasamy-madrid-died-vs-marie-yvette-gisele-madrid-on-4-march-2003\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/perianayagasamy-madrid-died-vs-marie-yvette-gisele-madrid-on-4-march-2003\",\"name\":\"Perianayagasamy Madrid (Died) vs Marie Yvette Gisele Madrid on 4 March, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2003-03-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-02-18T21:29:19+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/perianayagasamy-madrid-died-vs-marie-yvette-gisele-madrid-on-4-march-2003#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/perianayagasamy-madrid-died-vs-marie-yvette-gisele-madrid-on-4-march-2003\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/perianayagasamy-madrid-died-vs-marie-yvette-gisele-madrid-on-4-march-2003#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Perianayagasamy Madrid (Died) vs Marie Yvette Gisele Madrid on 4 March, 2003\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Perianayagasamy Madrid (Died) vs Marie Yvette Gisele Madrid on 4 March, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/perianayagasamy-madrid-died-vs-marie-yvette-gisele-madrid-on-4-march-2003","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Perianayagasamy Madrid (Died) vs Marie Yvette Gisele Madrid on 4 March, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/perianayagasamy-madrid-died-vs-marie-yvette-gisele-madrid-on-4-march-2003","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2003-03-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-02-18T21:29:19+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"20 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/perianayagasamy-madrid-died-vs-marie-yvette-gisele-madrid-on-4-march-2003#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/perianayagasamy-madrid-died-vs-marie-yvette-gisele-madrid-on-4-march-2003"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Perianayagasamy Madrid (Died) vs Marie Yvette Gisele Madrid on 4 March, 2003","datePublished":"2003-03-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-02-18T21:29:19+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/perianayagasamy-madrid-died-vs-marie-yvette-gisele-madrid-on-4-march-2003"},"wordCount":3830,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/perianayagasamy-madrid-died-vs-marie-yvette-gisele-madrid-on-4-march-2003#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/perianayagasamy-madrid-died-vs-marie-yvette-gisele-madrid-on-4-march-2003","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/perianayagasamy-madrid-died-vs-marie-yvette-gisele-madrid-on-4-march-2003","name":"Perianayagasamy Madrid (Died) vs Marie Yvette Gisele Madrid on 4 March, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2003-03-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-02-18T21:29:19+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/perianayagasamy-madrid-died-vs-marie-yvette-gisele-madrid-on-4-march-2003#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/perianayagasamy-madrid-died-vs-marie-yvette-gisele-madrid-on-4-march-2003"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/perianayagasamy-madrid-died-vs-marie-yvette-gisele-madrid-on-4-march-2003#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Perianayagasamy Madrid (Died) vs Marie Yvette Gisele Madrid on 4 March, 2003"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/33531","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=33531"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/33531\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=33531"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=33531"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=33531"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}