{"id":37506,"date":"2011-05-13T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-05-12T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rangammal-vs-kuppuswami-anr-on-13-may-2011"},"modified":"2015-12-10T11:22:11","modified_gmt":"2015-12-10T05:52:11","slug":"rangammal-vs-kuppuswami-anr-on-13-may-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rangammal-vs-kuppuswami-anr-on-13-may-2011","title":{"rendered":"Rangammal vs Kuppuswami & Anr on 13 May, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Rangammal vs Kuppuswami & Anr on 13 May, 2011<\/div>\n
Author: G S Misra<\/div>\n
Bench: J.M. Panchal, Gyan Sudha Misra<\/div>\n
                                                                  REPORTABLE \n\n\n            IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA\n\n            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n\n\n            CIVIL APPEAL NO. 562 OF 2003\n\n\n\n\nRANGAMMAL                                                  .. Appellant\n\n\n\n                               Versus\n\n\n\nKUPPUSWAMI & ANR.                                         ..Respondents\n\n\n\n\n                        J U D G M E N T \n<\/pre>\n
GYAN SUDHA MISRA, J.\n<\/p>\n
            This appeal by special leave has been filed by the <\/p>\n
appellant   Tmt.   Rangammal   against   the   order   dated <\/p>\n
11.07.2002 passed by the learned single Judge of the High <\/p>\n
Court   of   Judicature   at   Madras   in   Second   Appeal   No. <\/p>\n
703\/1992   by   which     the   appeal     was   dismissed   by <\/p>\n
practically     a   summary   order   although   the   substantial <\/p>\n
question   of   law   which   was   formulated   at   the   time   of <\/p>\n
admission of the appeal was as follows:\n<\/p>\n
            “Whether   the   sale   deed   executed  by   the <\/p>\n
          de facto  guardian on behalf of   the minor <\/p>\n
          without   the   permission     of   the   court <\/p>\n
          could be held to be valid ?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
<\/blockquote>\n
2.            However,     on   hearing   the   appeal   in   the   light   of <\/p>\n
the   prevailing     facts   and   circumstances     of   the   instant <\/p>\n
matter,   we   are   of   the   view     that   the   question     also   arises <\/p>\n
whether  in a partition suit  filed by the plaintiff\/respondent <\/p>\n
No.1   herein,   the   courts   below   could   shift   the   burden   of <\/p>\n
proof  on the defendant – appellant regarding the validity  of <\/p>\n
a   sale   deed,   which   was   executed   when   the   appellant     was <\/p>\n
admittedly   a minor,  contrary  to  the  pleading     in  the  plaint <\/p>\n
filed   in   a   suit     for   partition,   who   claimed     title   to   the   suit <\/p>\n
land on the basis of the  alleged sale deed.    Still further the <\/p>\n
question   arises   whether   the   question   of   limitation   could <\/p>\n
arise   against   the     defendant\/appellant   shifting   the   burden <\/p>\n
on   her   to   challenge   the   sale   deed,   when   the   story   of <\/p>\n
execution     of   the   alleged     sale   deed   was   set   up     by   the <\/p>\n
plaintiff\/respondent   No.1     in   the   plaint   for   the   first   time <\/p>\n
when   he   filed   partition   suit     against   his   brother,   without <\/p>\n
impleading the appellant,  but claimed benefit of title to the <\/p>\n
suit land on the basis of the alleged sale deed.\n<\/p>\n
3.           In order to  decide the aforesaid  controversy, it is <\/p>\n
necessary  to relate the facts  giving rise  to  this  appeal  in <\/p>\n
so       <\/p>\n
far as   it is relevant which disclose that the appellant Tmt.\n<\/p>\n
Rangammal   was   impleaded   as   second   defendant   in   a   suit <\/p>\n
for   partition   bearing   O.S.   No.   255\/1982   which   had   been <\/p>\n
filed by    one   Kuppuswami  plaintiff-respondent  No.1   herein <\/p>\n
in   the   court   of   District   Munsif,   Palani,   against   his   brother <\/p>\n
Andivelu          who         was           the         principal         defendant\/1st <\/p>\n
defendant\/respondent   No.2   herein     for     partition   and <\/p>\n
separate   possession,   but   the   plaintiff   also     included     the <\/p>\n
property    of the  appellant-Rangammal    in the schedule   to <\/p>\n
the plaint  without including  her as a party to the suit as  it <\/p>\n
was pleaded   by the plaintiff-respondent No.1-Kuppuswami <\/p>\n
that  the  share   which  originally     belonged  to   the   appellant-\n<\/p>\n
Rangammal,     was     transferred   to   their   predecessors,   who <\/p>\n
were     father     and   uncle     of   the   plaintiff   and   defendant <\/p>\n
No.1\/Respondent   No.1   Andivelu,     by   way   of   a   sale   deed <\/p>\n
dated     24.2.1951   executed   in   their     favour   by     Kumara <\/p>\n
Naicker     who   claimed   to   be     the   legal   guardian   of   the <\/p>\n
Rangammal              when          the          appellant\/Rangammal                 was <\/p>\n
admittedly a minor and was barely  few years old, less than <\/p>\n
even three years.   The sale deed was claimed   to have been <\/p>\n
                                                                                        4<\/span><\/p>\n
executed  for  legal  necessity   in  order  to  discharge   the <\/p>\n
debt           <\/p>\n
of     the   deceased   mother   of   the   appellant   in   the   year   1951 <\/p>\n
which according to the case of the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 <\/p>\n
had   been   transferred   to   their   branch   by   virtue   of   the <\/p>\n
aforesaid sale deed   executed on   24.2.1951 by the   alleged <\/p>\n
guardian of the appellant  Kumara Naicker.\n<\/p>\n
4.           Since   the   appellant   had   not   been   impleaded   in <\/p>\n
the suit for partition although her property was included in <\/p>\n
the   partition   suit   between   the   two   brothers   i.e.   plaintiff <\/p>\n
Kuppuswami-respondent   No.1   herein     and   Andivelu   1st <\/p>\n
defendant   -respondent   No.2   herein,   the   appellant   filed   an <\/p>\n
application for impleadment in  the partition suit  before the <\/p>\n
trial court which was allowed.\n<\/p>\n
5.             The   appellant   herein   who   was   impleaded   as   a <\/p>\n
second   defendant     in   the   suit     clearly     pleaded   that   the <\/p>\n
partition     suit     filed   by   Kuppuswami-plaintiff   against   his <\/p>\n
brother   Andivelu   1st  defendant   -respondent   No.2   herein, <\/p>\n
was collusive   in nature as this was   clearly to deprive the <\/p>\n
                                                                             5<\/span><\/p>\n
appellant from her share by  relying on an alleged sale deed <\/p>\n
dated 24.2.1951 by fraudulently   stating that the deceased <\/p>\n
mother of the appellant  was owing  certain debt  during her <\/p>\n
lifetime     and     in     order     to     discharge     the     same,   the   so-\n<\/p>\n
called                     <\/p>\n
legal guardian  of the appellant Kumara Naicker executed a <\/p>\n
sale deed  in favour of   the father  and uncle  of the plaintiff <\/p>\n
and   defendant   No.1   who   are   respondents   herein.     It   was, <\/p>\n
therefore,  submitted  by the appellant\/2nd defendant  in the <\/p>\n
suit       that   the sale deed   dated 24.2.1951 alleged to have <\/p>\n
been     executed     in   order   to     discharge     the   debt   of   her <\/p>\n
deceased   mother,     when   the   appellant   was   a  minor,   ought <\/p>\n
not to be held   legally binding on her   and so as to include <\/p>\n
her   property   for   partition     in   the   partition   suit   which   had <\/p>\n
been     instituted     by   an   altogether   different   branch     of   the <\/p>\n
family   who     had   separated     more   than   three   generations <\/p>\n
ago. Hence she specifically pleaded   that the   partition suit <\/p>\n
including her property was clearly collusive in nature   and <\/p>\n
therefore the suit was fit to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                                   6<\/span><\/p>\n
6.            In   order   to   appreciate   whether   the   courts   below <\/p>\n
were   justified   in   depriving   the   appellant   Tmt.   Rangammal <\/p>\n
from   her   share,   it   appears   necessary   to   relate   some   other <\/p>\n
salient   facts   of   the   case   leading   up   to   the   filing   of     this <\/p>\n
appeal.   The   schedule-property   comprising   an   area   of   4 <\/p>\n
acres  and  10 cents    described in various    survey numbers <\/p>\n
originally   belonged   to   one     Laksmi   Naicker-the   common <\/p>\n
ancestor   of   contesting   parties   who   had   two   sons     and   an <\/p>\n
oral partition had taken place between them in regard to the <\/p>\n
properties   of   the   joint   family   including   the   schedule-\n<\/p>\n
property.     Thereafter,   a   sale   deed   dated   24.2.1951   in <\/p>\n
respect   of   the   schedule-property   was   executed   by   Kumara <\/p>\n
Naicker   -alleged   legal   guardian     of   appellant-Rangammal <\/p>\n
who was   one of the sons of late Kumara Naicker   and wife <\/p>\n
of the elder son of Laksmi Naicker-Thottammal a cousin  of <\/p>\n
her son, who was descendent of  Kumara Naicker.  Kumara <\/p>\n
Naicker,     i.e.   the   son   of   the   elder   son   of   Laksmi   Naicker <\/p>\n
executed   the   sale   deed   on   behalf   of   the   appellant   herein, <\/p>\n
who   was   the   daughter   of     younger   son   of   Laksmi   Naicker <\/p>\n
and   Andi   Naicker     was   admittedly   a   minor,   representing <\/p>\n
himself  as her guardian since she had lost both  her father <\/p>\n
                                                                                 7<\/span><\/p>\n
and   her   mother   at   the   time   of   the   execution   of   the   sale <\/p>\n
deed.     However,   the   appellant   according   to   her   case <\/p>\n
continued   in   possession     of     half   of   the   schedule   property <\/p>\n
according   to   the   oral   partition   which   had   fallen   into   the <\/p>\n
share of her father since the  only brother of the appellant\/ <\/p>\n
Rangammal   had   died   unmarried.     Thus,   the     appellant <\/p>\n
continued to be in possession of half of the property without <\/p>\n
any  knowledge about the alleged sale deed.\n<\/p>\n
7.           The appellant’s case  is that   as she was a minor <\/p>\n
and   had   lost   both   her   parents,   she   was   living   with   her <\/p>\n
maternal   uncle   even   at   the   time   of   the   alleged   sale.       The <\/p>\n
appellant’s case is that the suit was instituted between  the <\/p>\n
plaintiff-respondent   No.1   herein   and   1st                 defendant-\n<\/p>\n
respondent   No.2   herein  under   the  pretext   of   partition   but <\/p>\n
in   fact  the   idea   behind  institution  of  the   suit  was     to   oust <\/p>\n
the appellant  who continued to be in possession of  half of <\/p>\n
the share of the property being the sole legal representative <\/p>\n
of   the   younger   son   of     Laksmi   Naicker   who   was   Andi <\/p>\n
Naicker.       As already stated, the appellant in fact was not <\/p>\n
even   made     a   party   in   the   partition   suit   initially   but   was <\/p>\n
                                                                               8<\/span><\/p>\n
later   impleaded   as   2nd  defendant     after   she   filed     an <\/p>\n
application for her impleadment.\n<\/p>\n
8.           However,   the High Court   while dealing with the <\/p>\n
second   appeal   arising   out   of   the   partition   suit,   cast   the <\/p>\n
burden     completely     on   the   appellant\/2nd  defendant     to <\/p>\n
prove   that the property shown in the sale   deed which fell <\/p>\n
into the share of the   appellant, was not for the purpose of <\/p>\n
discharge   of   the     liability   of   her   deceased   mother   who <\/p>\n
according   to   her   case   was   not   owing   any   debt   to   anyone <\/p>\n
including   Kumara   Naicker.     But   the     suit   was   finally <\/p>\n
decreed   in   favour   of   the   plaintiff\/respondent   No.1   holding <\/p>\n
therein   that   the   appellant’s   deceased   mother     was   owing <\/p>\n
certain   debts   and   for   discharge   of   the   same,   the   so-called <\/p>\n
legal   guardian   of   the   appellant   who   was   Kumara   Naicker <\/p>\n
executed   a   sale   deed   in   favour   of   the   plaintiff’s   father   and <\/p>\n
defendant No.1’s  father       in  respect of  the   entire    property <\/p>\n
of     Rangammal     and     this   was   done   ostensibly     as   the <\/p>\n
appellant’s   mother     had   to   discharge   certain   debts   which <\/p>\n
she   was   owing   to   the   plaintiff’s   father   during   her   lifetime.\n<\/p>\n
Thus, the District Munsif, Palani, decreed the suit in favour <\/p>\n
of   the   plaintiff\/1st  respondent   herein   Kuppuswami.     While <\/p>\n
                                                                               9<\/span><\/p>\n
doing   so, the trial court   recorded a finding   that the sale <\/p>\n
deed dated 24.2.1951 by which  half  share  of the appellant <\/p>\n
in   the   suit   property     was   transferred   when   the   appellant <\/p>\n
was a minor had been executed  by legal guardian   Kumara <\/p>\n
Naicker     for   legal   necessity       according   to   the   case   of   the <\/p>\n
appellant   herein,   Kumara   Naicker   the   so-called   legal <\/p>\n
guardian   was   neither   her   natural   guardian   nor   guardian <\/p>\n
appointed   by   the   court   and   hence     the   sale   deed  executed <\/p>\n
by him to the extent of half share of the schedule property <\/p>\n
of appellant-Rangammal was clearly void, illegal, inoperative <\/p>\n
and   hence not binding on her.   The trial court decreed the <\/p>\n
suit against which the appeal before the 1st  appellate court <\/p>\n
was dismissed.  The matter then came up to the High Court <\/p>\n
by way of a second appeal.\n<\/p>\n
9.           Learned   counsel   for   the   appellant   while <\/p>\n
challenging   the     judgment   and   orders   of   the   courts   below <\/p>\n
submitted   that   the   sale   deed   executed   by   the   so-called  de  <\/p>\n
facto guardian Kumara Naicker and Thottammal  cannot be <\/p>\n
held to be binding         on   her     as   she   was   a   minor   in   the <\/p>\n
custody   of   her   maternal   uncle   and  not  Kumara     Naicker   –\n<\/p>\n
father   of   the   respondent   No.2     and   hence   the   sale   deed <\/p>\n
                                                                              10<\/span><\/p>\n
executed by him on her behalf was not binding on her   as <\/p>\n
the same was executed   in order to deprive  her of her  half <\/p>\n
share   in     the   disputed   property     which   is   situated   on   the <\/p>\n
eastern portion of the schedule property.\n<\/p>\n
10.           The   learned   single   Judge   of   the   High   Court <\/p>\n
however was pleased to dismiss the second appeal   holding <\/p>\n
therein   that   the   present   suit       out   of   which   the     second <\/p>\n
appeal arose was filed in the year 1982 which was after 31 <\/p>\n
years   of   the   execution   of   the   sale   deed   dated     24.2.1951.\n<\/p>\n
The   single   Judge   further   observed     that   if   the   appellant <\/p>\n
Tmt. Rangammal   was aggrieved   of the sale deed executed <\/p>\n
by the de facto  guardian,   she   ought   to   have   challenged   it <\/p>\n
within three years  from the date of  attaining majority.  The <\/p>\n
High Court  went  on to hold  that until the date  of filing of <\/p>\n
the present  suit by the  1st  respondent and even thereafter, <\/p>\n
the   appellant   had   not   chosen   to   challenge   the   sale   deed <\/p>\n
executed   by   the  de   facto  guardian   and   she   never   asserted <\/p>\n
any   title   in   respect   of   the   suit   property   irrespective   of   the <\/p>\n
sale   deed   in  order   to   establish  that  she     was     aggrieved  of <\/p>\n
the  sale deed and hence it was too late for the appellant to <\/p>\n
                                                                               11<\/span><\/p>\n
raise   such   a   plea   in   the   High   Court     by   way   of   a   second <\/p>\n
appeal.\n<\/p>\n
11.          We have heard learned counsel for the parties  at <\/p>\n
length and on   a consideration of their   submissions in the <\/p>\n
light   of   the     judgments   and   orders   of   the   courts   below, <\/p>\n
specially the High Court, we are clearly of the view that the <\/p>\n
High   Court   as   also   the   courts   below   have   clearly <\/p>\n
misconstrued  the entire case of the plaintiff  as well as the <\/p>\n
respondents   and   tried   it   contrary   to   the   pleadings.     The <\/p>\n
High Court has recorded that   “the present suit which  was  <\/p>\n
filed in the year 1982, is after 31 years” i.e. after 31 years of <\/p>\n
the execution of the sale deed dated 24.2.1951.   But it can <\/p>\n
be     instantly   noticed   that  the   High  Court   has  fallen   into  a <\/p>\n
crystal clear error   as it has   patently   and unambiguously <\/p>\n
missed   that   the   suit     had   not   been   filed   by   the   appellant <\/p>\n
Tmt. Rangammal   as she was   the 2nd   defendant   who was <\/p>\n
later impleaded in the suit  but the partition  suit had been <\/p>\n
filed   by   the   plaintiff-Kuppuswami-respondent   No.1   herein <\/p>\n
against   his   brother   the   2nd             respondent-Andivelu-1st <\/p>\n
defendant     which   was   a   suit   for   partition     of   the   property <\/p>\n
but   while   doing   so   he     included   and   asserted     title   to   the <\/p>\n
                                                                              12<\/span><\/p>\n
property in the schedule of the plaint which  admittedly had <\/p>\n
fallen   into     the   share     of   the   appellant’s   deceased-father <\/p>\n
which     devolved     upon   her     after   the   death   of   her   father, <\/p>\n
mother   and   brother     who   died   unmarried.     But   it   is     the <\/p>\n
plaintiff\/respondent No.1 who came up with a   case   in the <\/p>\n
plaint   that this property was transferred for legal necessity <\/p>\n
by   the   so-called   legal   guardian     of   the     appellant   by <\/p>\n
executing   a   sale   deed   on   24.2.1951   in   favour   of   the <\/p>\n
respondents predecessors who were father and uncle  of the <\/p>\n
plaintiff  and 1st defendants\/respondents herein.\n<\/p>\n
12.          The  learned  single   Judge     of  the   High   Court     as <\/p>\n
also the trial court  and the lower appellate court  thus have <\/p>\n
lost sight of the fact that  it is the plaintiff\/respondent No.1 <\/p>\n
herein who had come up with a case that the half share of <\/p>\n
the     disputed   property     which   on   partition   had   fallen   into <\/p>\n
the   share     of   the   appellant’s   father     was   sold     out   by <\/p>\n
Kumara   Naicker   as   guardian   of   the   appellant-who   was   a <\/p>\n
minor in order to discharge some debt which the appellant’s <\/p>\n
deceased   mother   was   alleged   to   be   owing.     However   the <\/p>\n
disputed property which was sold in order to discharge  the <\/p>\n
alleged burden of debt vide sale deed dated 24.2.1951 was <\/p>\n
                                                                            13<\/span><\/p>\n
purchased  by the plaintiff-1st  respondent’s father Arumuga <\/p>\n
Gounder     and   their   uncle     Kumara   Naicker   which   means <\/p>\n
that the legal guardian Kumara Naicker claims the property <\/p>\n
of the appellant who was minor and then sold it  to himself <\/p>\n
and     nephew     Arumuga   Gounder.     Furthermore,   it   is   also <\/p>\n
the plaintiff’s case   that the property which had fallen into <\/p>\n
the   share     of   Tmt.   Rangammal   had   been   sold   out   by <\/p>\n
Kumara   Naicker   to   the   father   of     Kuppuswami-Arumuga <\/p>\n
Gounder and Andivelu who was his own  son.\n<\/p>\n
13.           Therefore,   it   is   more   than   apparent     that   when <\/p>\n
the   plaintiff\/respondent   came   up   with   a   case   of   execution <\/p>\n
of   sale   deed   on   24.2.21951   for   half     of     the   schedule <\/p>\n
property\/disputed   property     alleged   to   have   been   sold   out <\/p>\n
for   legal   necessity   which   had   fallen   into   the   share   of <\/p>\n
appellant   Rangammal,   the   burden   clearly       lay   on   the <\/p>\n
plaintiff\/respondent   No.1   to   discharge   that   the   sale   deed <\/p>\n
executed   by     Kumara   Naicker   to   his   own   son   and   nephew <\/p>\n
Arumuga   Gounder     in   regard   to   the   share   which   had <\/p>\n
admittedly     fallen     into   the   appellant     share     Rangammal <\/p>\n
who was a minor, was sold  for the legal necessity.  But this <\/p>\n
burden   by   the   trial     court   was   wrongly   cast   upon   the <\/p>\n
                                                                         14<\/span><\/p>\n
appellant\/Rangammal     to   discharge,   although,     it   is   well-\n<\/p>\n
settled   that  the     party     who  pleads    has  also to  prove  his <\/p>\n
case.\n<\/p>\n
14.           Section   101   of   the       Indian   Evidence   Act,   1872 <\/p>\n
defines   `burden   of   proof’   which     clearly   lays   down       that <\/p>\n
whosoever     desires   any   court     to   give   judgment   as   to   any <\/p>\n
legal right or law  dependent on the existence of facts which <\/p>\n
he   asserts,   must   prove   that   those   facts   exist.     When     a <\/p>\n
person is  bound to prove  the        existence     of  any  fact it is <\/p>\n
said  that the burden of proof lies on that person.  Thus, the <\/p>\n
Evidence   Act   has   clearly   laid   down   that   the   burden   of <\/p>\n
proving     fact     always   lies   upon   the   person   who   asserts.\n<\/p>\n
Until   such   burden   is   discharged,   the   other   party   is   not <\/p>\n
required  to be called upon to prove his case.  The court has <\/p>\n
to examine   as to whether   the person upon whom burden <\/p>\n
lies     has   been   able   to   discharge   his   burden.     Until       he <\/p>\n
arrives at such conclusion, he cannot proceed on the basis <\/p>\n
of weakness of the other party.  In view of this legal position <\/p>\n
of   the   Evidence   Act,   it   is   clear   that   in   the   instant   matter, <\/p>\n
when   the   plaintiff\/respondent   No.1   pleaded   that   the <\/p>\n
disputed   property     fell   into   the   share   of   the   plaintiff   by <\/p>\n
                                                                               15<\/span><\/p>\n
virtue of the sale deed dated 24.2.1951, then it was clearly <\/p>\n
for   the   plaintiff\/respondent   No.1   to   prove     that   it   was <\/p>\n
executed  for  legal necessity of the appellant-while she was <\/p>\n
a   minor.       But,   the   High  Court   clearly   took     an   erroneous <\/p>\n
view     while   holding   that   it   is   the   defendant\/appellant   who <\/p>\n
should   have   challenged   the   sale   deed   after   attaining <\/p>\n
majority   as   she   had   no   reason   to   do   so   since   the   plaintiff <\/p>\n
\/respondent No.1   failed to first of all discharge the burden <\/p>\n
that   the   sale   deed   in   fact   had   been   executed     for   legal <\/p>\n
necessity   of   the   minor’s   predecessor   mother   was   without <\/p>\n
permission           of         the         court.         It         was         not         the <\/p>\n
defendant\/respondent who  first of all claimed benefit of the <\/p>\n
sale deed  or asserted its genuineness, hence the burden of <\/p>\n
challenging the sale deed specifically when she had not even <\/p>\n
been dispossessed from the disputed share, did not arise at <\/p>\n
all.\n<\/p>\n
15.          Plethora of commentaries   emerging from   series <\/p>\n
of case  laws  on burden of proof  which are too  numerous <\/p>\n
to   cite,   lay   down   that  when   a   person   after   attaining <\/p>\n
majority, questions any sale of his property by his guardian <\/p>\n
during   his   minority,   the   burden   lies   on   the   person   who <\/p>\n
                                                                                               16<\/span><\/p>\n
upholds\/asserts the purchase not   only to   show that   the <\/p>\n
guardian   had the power to sell   but further that the whole <\/p>\n
transaction   was   bona   fide.    This     was   held   in   the   case   of <\/p>\n
Roop   Narain  vs.    Gangadhar,   9WR   297,  as   also     in  Anna  <\/p>\n
Malay      vs.     Na   U   Ma,      17C   990.   Thus   when   the <\/p>\n
plaintiff\/respondent   No.1   came   up   with   a   case   that   the <\/p>\n
minor’s share\/appellant herein was sold for legal necessity <\/p>\n
by   her   uncle   Kumara   Naicker,   then                  it   was   the <\/p>\n
plaintiff\/respondent   No.1   who   should   have   discharged   the <\/p>\n
burden to prove that the minor\/appellant’s share had been <\/p>\n
sold   of   by   the  de   facto  guardian   Kumara   Naicker   without <\/p>\n
permission of the court, could be held to be legal and valid <\/p>\n
so as to include the same in the partition suit between two <\/p>\n
brothers,   which   has   not   been   discharged   at   all   by   the <\/p>\n
plaintiff\/respondent   No.1.     In   fact,   the   real   brother   of <\/p>\n
plaintiff   Kuppuswami   who   is   defendant   No.1\/respondent <\/p>\n
No.1 herein Andivelu has also not supported the case of the <\/p>\n
plaintiff that the half share of appellant\/Rangammal in the <\/p>\n
disputed   property     was   sold   out   vide   sale   deed   dated <\/p>\n
24.2.1951   for   legal   necessity   without   permission   of   the <\/p>\n
Court and hence  defendant No.1\/respondent No.2 also has <\/p>\n
                                                                            17<\/span><\/p>\n
not supported  the  case  of the  plaintiff\/respondent  No.1  on <\/p>\n
this count.\n<\/p>\n
16.             The   plaintiff\/respondent   No.1   therefore   has <\/p>\n
miserably  failed to prove his case as per his pleading in the <\/p>\n
plaint   and   the   burden   to   prove   that   the   sale   deed   in   fact <\/p>\n
was   valid   has   not   even   been   cast   on   plaintiff\/respondent <\/p>\n
No.1 that the share of appellant-Rangammal had been sold <\/p>\n
out by Kumara Naicker vide sale deed  dated  24.2.1951 for <\/p>\n
consideration   without   permission   of   the   Court   when   the <\/p>\n
appellant was a minor.\n<\/p>\n
17.             The   High   Court,   therefore,     has   fallen   into   an <\/p>\n
error   while  observing  that  the  appellant\/defendant   No.2  in <\/p>\n
the suit  should have assailed the sale deed and  cannot do <\/p>\n
so  after 31 years of its execution when it is unambiguously <\/p>\n
an          admitted         factual         position         that         it         is         the <\/p>\n
plaintiff\/respondent  No.1  who had  filed a suit for partition <\/p>\n
against his brother defendant No.1\/respondent No.2 and in <\/p>\n
that   partition   suit     it   was     plaintiff\/respondent   No.1   who <\/p>\n
banked upon the story  that a sale deed had been executed <\/p>\n
by his Uncle Kumara Naicker who claimed it to be the legal <\/p>\n
guardian of the appellant-Rangammal who admittedly was a <\/p>\n
                                                                                                  18<\/span><\/p>\n
minor for legal necessity which was to discharge the debt of <\/p>\n
the appellant’s deceased mother.   Hence, in view of Section <\/p>\n
101   of   the   Indian   Evidence   Act,   1872   it   is   the <\/p>\n
plaintiff\/respondent   No.1     who   should   have   first   of   all <\/p>\n
discharged   the   burden     that  in    fact   a  sale   deed  had   been <\/p>\n
executed   for   the   share   which   admittedly   belonged   to <\/p>\n
appellant-Rangammal   in   order   to   discharge   the   burden   of <\/p>\n
debt for legal necessity and for the benefit of the appellant <\/p>\n
who admittedly was a minor.\n<\/p>\n
18.          When the plaintiff-respondent  No.1-Kuppuswami <\/p>\n
came with a specific pleading for the first time in a partition <\/p>\n
suit  that the appellant’s share had been sold out by her de  <\/p>\n
facto guardian Kumara Naicker without even the permission <\/p>\n
of     the   court,   it   was   clearly   the   plaintiff\/respondent   No.1 <\/p>\n
who should have discharged the burden that the same was <\/p>\n
done for legal necessity   of the minor in order to discharge <\/p>\n
the   debt   which   the   deceased   mother   of   the   appellant   was <\/p>\n
alleged   to   have   been   owing     to   some   one.     When   the <\/p>\n
plaintiff\/respondent   No.1   failed   to   discharge     this   burden, <\/p>\n
the   question   of   discharge   of   burden     to   disprove     the   sale <\/p>\n
deed     by   the   2nd  defendant\/appellant-Rangammal   do   not <\/p>\n
                                                                            19<\/span><\/p>\n
arise  at all as per the provisions of Evidence Act.  It may be <\/p>\n
relevant at this stage to cite  the ratio of the decision of this <\/p>\n
Court     delivered   in   the   matter   of  Subhra   Mukherjee  vs. <\/p>\n
Bharat   Coaking   Coal   Ltd,   AIR<\/a>   2000   SC   1203,  whether   the <\/p>\n
document in question was genuine   or sham   or bogus, the <\/p>\n
party who  alleged it to be bogus had to prove nothing until <\/p>\n
the   party   relying     upon     the   document   established       its <\/p>\n
genuineness.  This  was the view expressed by this Court in <\/p>\n
the   matter   of  Subhra   Mukherjee  vs.  Bharat   Coaking   Coal  <\/p>\n
Ltd,  AIR<\/a>   2000   SC   1203   =   2000   (3)   SCC   312.      This   case <\/p>\n
although did not relate   to a suit   for partition or question <\/p>\n
relating   to   minority,     it   was   a   case   wherein   the   appellant <\/p>\n
refused   to   hand   over   possession   of   property   to   the <\/p>\n
respondent-government   company     when   ordered   to   do   so.\n<\/p>\n
Instead she filed a suit for declaration of  title in respect of <\/p>\n
property.     The   evidence   of   plaintiff\/appellant   indicated <\/p>\n
several     discrepancies     and   inconsistencies     due   to   which <\/p>\n
the trial court dismissed the suit but the 1st appellate court <\/p>\n
and     the   High   Court,     had   allowed   the   appeal   which   was <\/p>\n
upheld by the Supreme Court  as it was  held  that the High <\/p>\n
Court   rightly   allowed   the   respondent’s\/government <\/p>\n
                                                                           20<\/span><\/p>\n
company’s second appeal and rightly found that the sale in <\/p>\n
favour of the appellant was not bona fide   and thus confer <\/p>\n
no  rights on them.\n<\/p>\n
19.           Application   of     Section   101   of   the   Evidence   Act, <\/p>\n
1872 thus came up for discussion in this matter and while <\/p>\n
discussing the law on the burden of proof in the context of <\/p>\n
dealing   with     the   allegation   of       sham   and   bogus <\/p>\n
transaction, it was held that   party which makes allegation <\/p>\n
must   prove   it.     But   the   court   was   further   pleased   to   hold <\/p>\n
wherein   the     question   before   the   court   was   “whether     the <\/p>\n
transaction in question   was a bona fide and genuine one”\n<\/p>\n
so that the party\/plaintiff relying  on the transaction had to <\/p>\n
first of all prove  its genuineness and only  thereafter would <\/p>\n
the defendant  be required to discharge the burden in order <\/p>\n
to   dislodge   such   proof   and   establish     that   the   transaction <\/p>\n
was   sham   and   fictitious.     This   ratio     can   aptly     be   relied <\/p>\n
upon     in   this   matter   as   in   this   particular   case,   it   is   the <\/p>\n
plaintiff\/respondent   No.1-Kuppuswami     who   relied   upon <\/p>\n
the   alleged   sale   deed   dated   24.2.1951   and   included   the <\/p>\n
subject-matter of the property which formed part of the sale <\/p>\n
deed and claimed partition.   This sale deed  was denied by <\/p>\n
                                                                               21<\/span><\/p>\n
the   defendant\/appellant   on   the   ground   that   it   was   bogus <\/p>\n
and   a  sham transaction  which   was  executed  admittedly   in <\/p>\n
1951   when   she   was   a   minor.                Thus,   it   was   the <\/p>\n
plaintiff\/respondent   No.1   who   should   have   first   of   all <\/p>\n
discharged   the   burden   that   the   sale   deed   executed   during <\/p>\n
the minority of the appellant  was  genuine and was fit to be <\/p>\n
relied upon.   If the courts below   including the High Court <\/p>\n
had   felt   satisfied     on   this   aspect,     only   then     the   burden <\/p>\n
could   be     shifted   on   the   defendant\/appellant   to     dislodge <\/p>\n
the case  of the plaintiff  that the sale deed was not genuine.\n<\/p>\n
But   when   the   plaintiff   merely     pleaded   in   the   plaint     but <\/p>\n
failed  to lead any evidence – much   less proof, that the sale <\/p>\n
deed   was   genuine   and   was   executed   in   order   to   discharge <\/p>\n
the burden of legal necessity  in the interest of  minor, then <\/p>\n
the   High   Court     clearly   misdirected   itself     by   recording   in <\/p>\n
the   impugned   order   that   it   is   the   defendant\/appellant <\/p>\n
herein who should  have challenged  the genuineness of the <\/p>\n
sale   deed   after   attaining   majority   within   the   period   of <\/p>\n
limitation.\n<\/p>\n
20.            Since  the  High  Court  has  misplaced    burden  of <\/p>\n
proof,   it   clearly   vitiated   its   own   judgments   as   also   of   the <\/p>\n
                                                                             22<\/span><\/p>\n
courts   below  since   it   is   well   established   dictum   of   the <\/p>\n
Evidence Act that misplacing  burden of proof would vitiate <\/p>\n
judgment.       It is also equally   and undoubtedly   true that <\/p>\n
the burden of proof may not be of much consequence  after <\/p>\n
both   the   parties     lay   evidence,   but   while     appreciating   the <\/p>\n
question of  burden of proof, misplacing of  burden of proof <\/p>\n
on a particular party and recording  findings in a particular <\/p>\n
way definitely  vitiates the judgment  as it has happened in <\/p>\n
the   instant   matter.     This   position   stands   reinforced     by <\/p>\n
several authorities   including the one   delivered in the case <\/p>\n
of    Koppula     Koteshwara   Rao  vs.    Koppula   Hemant   Rao,  <\/p>\n
2002 AIHC 4950 (AP).\n<\/p>\n
21.          It has been further held  by the Supreme Court in <\/p>\n
the case   of   State  of J & K  vs.  Hindustan  Forest Company,  <\/p>\n
2006 (12) SCC 198, wherein  it was held that the onus is on <\/p>\n
the plaintiff  to positively   establish its case on the basis of <\/p>\n
material   available   and   it   cannot   rely   on   the   weakness   or <\/p>\n
absence of defence to discharge onus.\n<\/p>\n
22.          It   was     still   further   held     by   this   Court   in   the <\/p>\n
matter of   Corporation  of City  of Bangalore  vs.  Zulekha   Bi,<\/a>  <\/p>\n
2008 (11) SCC 306 (308)  that it is for the plaintiff   to prove <\/p>\n
                                                                              23<\/span><\/p>\n
his   title   to   the   property.     This   ratio   can   clearly   be   made <\/p>\n
applicable  to the facts of this case for it is the plaintiff who <\/p>\n
claimed title to the  property  which was a subject-matter of <\/p>\n
the alleged sale deed of 24.2.1951 for which  he had sought <\/p>\n
partition   against   his  brother   and,  therefore,     it  was   clearly <\/p>\n
the plaintiff who should have first of all established his case <\/p>\n
establishing   title   of   the     property   to   the   joint   family   out   of <\/p>\n
which     he   was   claiming   his   share.     When   the   plaintiff <\/p>\n
himself failed to discharge the burden to prove that the sale <\/p>\n
deed   which   he   executed     in   favour   of   his   own   son   and <\/p>\n
nephew     by     selling   the   property     of   a  minor   of   whom     he <\/p>\n
claimed   to   be   legal   guardian     without   permission   of   the <\/p>\n
court,   it was clearly   fit to be set aside by the High Court <\/p>\n
which   the     High   Court     as   also   the   courts   below     have <\/p>\n
miserably  failed to discharge.  The onus was clearly on the <\/p>\n
plaintiff     to   positively   establish     his   case     on   the   basis     of <\/p>\n
material available   and could not have been allowed by the <\/p>\n
High Court to rely on the weakness   or absence   of defence <\/p>\n
of  the defendant\/appellant herein to discharge  such onus.\n<\/p>\n
23.           The   courts   below   thus   have   illegally   and <\/p>\n
erroneously   failed   not   to   cast   this   burden   on   the <\/p>\n
                                                                                 24<\/span><\/p>\n
plaintiff\/respondent   No.1   by   clearly   misconstruing   the <\/p>\n
whole   case   and   thus   resulted   into   recording   of   findings <\/p>\n
which   are   wholly   perverse   and   even   against   the   admitted <\/p>\n
case of the parties.\n<\/p>\n
24.          It   is   further   well-settled   that   a   suit     has   to   be <\/p>\n
tried on the basis of the pleadings  of the contesting parties <\/p>\n
which is filed   in the suit before the trial court in the form <\/p>\n
of     plaint   and   written   statement   and   the   nucleus     of   the <\/p>\n
case   of   the   plaintiff     and   the   contesting   case   of   the <\/p>\n
defendant   in the form of issues emerges out of   that.   This <\/p>\n
basic  principle,  seems to have been missed not only by the <\/p>\n
trial   court     in   this   case   but   consistently   by   the   first <\/p>\n
appellate   court   which   has   been     compounded   by   the   High <\/p>\n
Court.\n<\/p>\n
25.          Thus, we are of the view,  that the whole case out <\/p>\n
of which   this  appeal arises had been  practically made  a <\/p>\n
mess  by  missing  the  basic     principle     that the  suit  should <\/p>\n
be     decided   on   the   basis   of   the   pleading   of   the   contesting <\/p>\n
parties   after  which  Section  101  of The  Evidence  Act  would <\/p>\n
come  into play  in  order   to determine  on  whom  the  burden <\/p>\n
falls for proving the issues which have been determined.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                              25<\/span><\/p>\n
26.          We   further   fail   to   comprehend   as   to   how   the <\/p>\n
basic   case   pleaded   by   the   plaintiff   had   been   misconstrued <\/p>\n
and   the   burden   of   discharge   of   genuineness,   veracity   and <\/p>\n
legal   efficacy of the sale deed dated 24.2.1951 was shifted <\/p>\n
on the appellant-Rangammal   clearly missing   that it is the <\/p>\n
plaintiff’s\/respondent   No.1   case   who   was   bent   upon   to <\/p>\n
include   Rangammal’s   property   also   for   partition   by   relying <\/p>\n
upon the story of execution of sale deed  when the partition <\/p>\n
suit     was   between   the   two   brothers     who   were   plaintiff-\n<\/p>\n
Kuppuswami and defendant No.1-Andivelu.\n<\/p>\n
27.          Coming now to the next question, we are unable <\/p>\n
to   appreciate   as  to   how  the   High   Court     has  held  that  the <\/p>\n
delay   in   challenging   the     sale   deed   of   1951   should   have <\/p>\n
been   done   at   the   instance   of   the   2nd  defendant-appellant <\/p>\n
herein     when   it   is   the   plaintiff     who   brought   the <\/p>\n
theory\/story   of     execution   of     the   sale   deed     of   appellant <\/p>\n
Rangammal’s             property         into         the         branch         of <\/p>\n
plaintiff\/respondents’     branch   by   pleading   and   asserting <\/p>\n
that  this had fallen into the share of  their predecessor  as <\/p>\n
one of the predecessors was the  de facto  guardian     of   the <\/p>\n
appellant Rangammal.  In fact, if there was a dispute about <\/p>\n
                                                                                 26<\/span><\/p>\n
the   genuineness   and   veracity   of   the   sale   deed   and   the <\/p>\n
appellant   was   in   occupation   of   her   share,   then   it   is   the <\/p>\n
plaintiff  who should  have filed  a suit claiming title on the <\/p>\n
basis   of     the   sale   deed   which   was   claimed   to   have       been <\/p>\n
executed   in   their   favour   by   the  de   facto    guardian   of <\/p>\n
Rangammal   when   she   was   a   minor   before   this   property <\/p>\n
could   be   included   in   the   suit   for   partition   between   the <\/p>\n
brothers excluding the 2nd  defendant\/appellant Rangammal <\/p>\n
and   the     consequence   of   not   doing   so   or   delay   in   this <\/p>\n
regard,   obviously   will   have   to   be   attributed   to   the <\/p>\n
plaintiff\/respondent.\n<\/p>\n
28.           Thus, the High Court fell into a clear error when <\/p>\n
it observed that the suit was barred by limitation as it had <\/p>\n
been   filed   after   31   years   of   the   execution   of   the   sale   deed <\/p>\n
which   on   the   face   of   it   is   factually   incorrect.     The   High <\/p>\n
Court has clearly erred while recording   so,   as it seems to <\/p>\n
have     missed   that   the     suit   had   not   been   filed   by   the <\/p>\n
appellant herein  but she was merely contesting the suit as <\/p>\n
the   2nd  defendant   by   getting   herself   impleaded   in   the <\/p>\n
partition   suit   when   it   came   to   her   knowledge   that   the <\/p>\n
property   which   is     in   her   occupation   and   possession   has <\/p>\n
                                                                               27<\/span><\/p>\n
also been included in the schedule in the suit   for partition <\/p>\n
between   plaintiff\/respondent   No.1   herein-Kuppuswamy <\/p>\n
and   the   1st  defendant\/respondent   No.2   herein-Andivelu <\/p>\n
and when she received   the copy of the plaint, execution of <\/p>\n
the   alleged   sale   deed   way   back   in   1951   was     disclosed   to <\/p>\n
her for the first time.   Hence, there was no cause of action <\/p>\n
for   her     to   file   a   suit   challenging   the   alleged   sale   deed   as <\/p>\n
knowledge   of   the   same   cannot   be   attributed   to   her   in   this <\/p>\n
regard   as   she     asserted   actual   physical   possession   on   her <\/p>\n
share.\n<\/p>\n
29.           The   appellant   who   claimed   to   be   in   occupation <\/p>\n
and peaceful possession of   her share   to the extent of half <\/p>\n
which   is   situated   on   the   eastern     side   of   the   schedule <\/p>\n
property,   had   no     reason   to   file   a   suit   assailing     the   sale <\/p>\n
deed   when   she   was   in   actual   physical   possession   of   her <\/p>\n
share   and   suddenly   out   of   the   blue,   a   partition   suit     was <\/p>\n
filed by  the  plaintiff\/respondent  No.1 wherein the property <\/p>\n
of   the   appellant   also   was   included   in   the   schedule   of   the <\/p>\n
partition suit which was to be partitioned  between the two <\/p>\n
brothers by metes and bounds by setting a cooked up story <\/p>\n
that   the   appellant’s   share,   who   belonged   to   an   altogether <\/p>\n
                                                                                28<\/span><\/p>\n
different branch of the family, had been   given away by her <\/p>\n
de facto guardian Kumara Naicker by executing a sale deed <\/p>\n
in   favour   of   the   respondents’   predecessor   way   back   on <\/p>\n
24.2.1951 when the appellant admittedly was  a minor.\n<\/p>\n
30.          We are, therefore,  constrained to  partly set aside <\/p>\n
the  judgment  and  order  of  the  High Court   in so  far   as  the <\/p>\n
share   of   the   appellant   Rangammal   is   concerned   and <\/p>\n
consequently  the  decree  passed   by  the   trial   court,  upheld <\/p>\n
by   the   first   appellate   court   and   the   High   Court   which   had <\/p>\n
been illegally decreed   including the share   of the appellant <\/p>\n
-Rangammal   which   had   not   devolved   on   the   family   of   the <\/p>\n
plaintiff\/respondent   No.1   and   defendant   No.1\/respondent <\/p>\n
No.2,   but   was   claimed   on   the   basis   of   a   sale   deed   which <\/p>\n
could not be proved either by evidence or law, is fit to be set <\/p>\n
aside.\n<\/p>\n
31.          It hardly needs to be   highlighted   that  in   a suit <\/p>\n
for partition, it is   expected of the plaintiff   to include only <\/p>\n
those properties for partition to which the family has clear <\/p>\n
title and unambiguously  belong to the members of the joint <\/p>\n
family   which   is   sought   to   be   partitioned   and   if   someone <\/p>\n
else’s     property     meaning   thereby     disputed   property     is <\/p>\n
                                                                           29<\/span><\/p>\n
included   in the  schedule  of  the  suit for partition,  and the <\/p>\n
same   is   contested   by   a   third   party   who   is   allowed   to   be <\/p>\n
impleaded   by   order   of   the   trial   court,   obviously   it   is   the <\/p>\n
plaintiff who will have to first of  all discharge the burden of <\/p>\n
proof     for     establishing   that   the   disputed   property   belongs <\/p>\n
to   the   joint     family   which   should   be   partitioned   excluding <\/p>\n
someone   who   claims   that   some   portion   of   the   joint   family <\/p>\n
property   did   not   belong   to   the   plaintiff’s   joint   family   in <\/p>\n
regard to which decree for partition is sought.\n<\/p>\n
32.              However, we make it clear that the decree which <\/p>\n
has   been   passed   by   the   trial   court   in   so   far   as   partition <\/p>\n
between           plaintiff\/respondent          No.1         and         defendant <\/p>\n
No.1\/respondent   No.2   is   concerned,   shall   remain   in   tact <\/p>\n
but   the   said   decree   shall   exclude   the   property   which   had <\/p>\n
fallen   into   the   share   of     appellant-Rangammal   but   was <\/p>\n
claimed   to   have   been   transferred     to   the   branch   of     the <\/p>\n
plaintiff   and   1st  defendant-respondents   herein   vide   sale <\/p>\n
deed     dated   24.2.1951     The   trial   court   being   the   court   of <\/p>\n
District Munsif, Palani, accordingly shall modify the decree <\/p>\n
passed   in   O.S.   No.255   of   1982   by   excluding     the   share   of <\/p>\n
the appellant -Rangammal claimed on the basis of the sale <\/p>\n
                                                                                30<\/span><\/p>\n
deed dated 24.2.1951.   Thereafter,   if the decree   is put to <\/p>\n
execution,   the   executing   court     shall   ensure   that   such <\/p>\n
portion     of   the   property   which   is   in   occupation     of <\/p>\n
Rangammal   which   was   alleged  to   have   been  sold  vide   sale <\/p>\n
deed dated 24.2.1951, shall not be put into execution while <\/p>\n
partitioning   the   remaining   property   between   the   plaintiff-\n<\/p>\n
Kuppuswami   and   1st  defendant   -Andivelu   –   respondent <\/p>\n
No.2.\n<\/p>\n
33.          Thus,   this   appeal   in   so   far   as   the   claim     of   the <\/p>\n
appellant- Rangammal to the  extent  of half of the share in <\/p>\n
the   schedule   to   the   suit   property,   situated   on   the   eastern <\/p>\n
portion   is   concerned,   stands   allowed   with   a   token   cost <\/p>\n
which   is   quantified     at   rupees  twenty   five   thousand   as   we <\/p>\n
are   of   the   view   that   the   appellant   who   was   in   actual <\/p>\n
physical and peaceful possession of her property which she <\/p>\n
had inherited from her deceased parents, was unnecessarily <\/p>\n
dragged into this litigation at the instance of   the plaintiff-\n<\/p>\n
Kuppuswami   who   filed   a   partition   suit     which   was <\/p>\n
apparently collusive in nature as it included the share of a <\/p>\n
third party to which the plaintiff and 1st  defendant’s family <\/p>\n
had   no   clear   title.         Under   the   facts   and   circumstance   of <\/p>\n
                                                                               31<\/span><\/p>\n
the instant case, it was clearly a compulsion on the part of <\/p>\n
the appellant\/Tmt. Rangammal to contest the collusive suit <\/p>\n
for   decades   Kwasting   time,   energy   and   expense   over   a <\/p>\n
litigation  which  was  started by the plaintiff  clearly  with  an <\/p>\n
oblique motive and evil design. Hence the cost shall be paid <\/p>\n
by   the   respondent   No.1-Kuppuswami   to   the   appellant-\n<\/p>\n
Rangammal as indicated above.\n<\/p>\n
34.         Accordingly,   this   appeal   stands   allowed   with <\/p>\n
costs.\n<\/p>\n
                                        …………………………….J<\/p>\n
                                           (J.M. Panchal)<\/p>\n
                                        …………………………….J<\/p>\n
                                         (Gyan Sudha Misra )<\/p>\n
New Delhi,<\/p>\n
May 13, 2011<\/p>\n
                                                                  32<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Rangammal vs Kuppuswami & Anr on 13 May, 2011 Author: G S Misra Bench: J.M. Panchal, Gyan Sudha Misra REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 562 OF 2003 RANGAMMAL .. Appellant Versus KUPPUSWAMI & ANR. ..Respondents J U D G M E N T […]<\/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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-37506","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nRangammal vs Kuppuswami & Anr on 13 May, 2011 - 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\/rangammal-vs-kuppuswami-anr-on-13-may-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Rangammal vs Kuppuswami & Anr on 13 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rangammal-vs-kuppuswami-anr-on-13-may-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-05-12T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-12-10T05:52:11+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=\"29 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rangammal-vs-kuppuswami-anr-on-13-may-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rangammal-vs-kuppuswami-anr-on-13-may-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Rangammal vs Kuppuswami & Anr on 13 May, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-05-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-12-10T05:52:11+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rangammal-vs-kuppuswami-anr-on-13-may-2011\"},\"wordCount\":5866,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rangammal-vs-kuppuswami-anr-on-13-may-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rangammal-vs-kuppuswami-anr-on-13-may-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rangammal-vs-kuppuswami-anr-on-13-may-2011\",\"name\":\"Rangammal vs Kuppuswami & Anr on 13 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-05-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-12-10T05:52:11+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rangammal-vs-kuppuswami-anr-on-13-may-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rangammal-vs-kuppuswami-anr-on-13-may-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rangammal-vs-kuppuswami-anr-on-13-may-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Rangammal vs Kuppuswami & Anr on 13 May, 2011\"}]},{\"@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":"Rangammal vs Kuppuswami & Anr on 13 May, 2011 - 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\/rangammal-vs-kuppuswami-anr-on-13-may-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Rangammal vs Kuppuswami & Anr on 13 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rangammal-vs-kuppuswami-anr-on-13-may-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-05-12T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-12-10T05:52:11+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":"29 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rangammal-vs-kuppuswami-anr-on-13-may-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rangammal-vs-kuppuswami-anr-on-13-may-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Rangammal vs Kuppuswami & Anr on 13 May, 2011","datePublished":"2011-05-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-12-10T05:52:11+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rangammal-vs-kuppuswami-anr-on-13-may-2011"},"wordCount":5866,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rangammal-vs-kuppuswami-anr-on-13-may-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rangammal-vs-kuppuswami-anr-on-13-may-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rangammal-vs-kuppuswami-anr-on-13-may-2011","name":"Rangammal vs Kuppuswami & Anr on 13 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-05-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-12-10T05:52:11+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rangammal-vs-kuppuswami-anr-on-13-may-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rangammal-vs-kuppuswami-anr-on-13-may-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rangammal-vs-kuppuswami-anr-on-13-may-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Rangammal vs Kuppuswami & Anr on 13 May, 2011"}]},{"@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\/37506","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=37506"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/37506\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=37506"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=37506"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=37506"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}