Supreme Court overturns High Court ruling on oral partition in property dispute: Rajendhiran vs. Muthaiammal (2024)

Date of the Judgment: January 03, 2024

Citation: 2024 INSC 12

Judges: Vikram Nath, J. and Rajesh Bindal, J.

Can a High Court reverse concurrent findings of fact by lower courts based on a different interpretation of the same evidence? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a property dispute case, examining the validity of an oral partition of property. The dispute centered on whether the High Court of Judicature at Madras was correct in overturning the concurrent judgments of the Trial Court and the Sub-Judge, which had dismissed the plaintiff’s suit. The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Rajesh Bindal, delivered the judgment.

Case Background

The case revolves around a property dispute initiated by Muthaiammal and her adopted son (the plaintiffs) against Rajendhiran and another (the defendants). The plaintiffs claimed ownership of a property based on an alleged oral partition among the sons of one Avinashi Gounder, and a will executed by one of the sons, Arunachalam, in their favor. The defendants contested this claim, asserting that no such oral partition occurred and that the property rightfully belonged to them through a subsequent sale deed from one of the other sons of Avinashi Gounder, Palaniyappan.

Specifically, the plaintiffs contended that the property originally belonged to Avinashi Gounder, who had four sons: Arunachalam, Arumugam, Ramasamy, and Palaniyappan. The plaintiffs claimed that an oral partition took place, allotting the suit property to Arunachalam. Further, Arunachalam allegedly executed a will on 16.07.2003, bequeathing the property to the plaintiffs. Upon Arunachalam’s death on 30.04.2006, the plaintiffs asserted they became the absolute owners. They also claimed that the second defendant, who was in a partnership with the second plaintiff, fraudulently obtained a sale deed for the property on 10.02.2011 from the first defendant, daughter of Palaniyappan.

The defendants countered that no oral partition occurred and that the suit property was part of Palaniyappan’s share, which was later sold to the second defendant by Palaniyappan’s daughter, the first defendant. The defendants also argued that the suit was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, as other co-owners were not included in the suit.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court, Munsiff Court, Tiruchengode, dismissed the plaintiff’s suit, finding that the plaintiffs failed to prove the oral partition or the will, and that the suit was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The First Appellate Court, Subordinate Court, Tiruchengodu, upheld the Trial Court’s decision, concurring that the oral partition was not proven. However, the High Court of Judicature at Madras, in a second appeal, overturned these concurrent findings, holding that the oral partition was indeed proven based on certain documents that mentioned boundaries. The High Court thus decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs.

Legal Framework

The case primarily involves the interpretation and application of the following legal provisions:

• Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: This section deals with the proof of execution of a document required by law to be attested. It stipulates that if a document is required by law to be attested, it shall not be used as evidence until one attesting witness at least has been called for the purpose of proving its execution, if there be an attesting witness alive, and subject to the process of the Court and capable of giving evidence.
• Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1956: This section outlines the requirements for the execution of a will. It specifies that the testator must sign or affix their mark to the will, or it must be signed by some other person in their presence and by their direction, and that the signature or mark must be made so that it appears that it was intended to give effect to the writing as a will. Further, it requires that the will be attested by two or more witnesses, each of whom must have seen the testator sign or affix their mark, or have seen some other person sign the will in the presence and by the direction of the testator, or have received from the testator a personal acknowledgment of their signature or mark.

These provisions are crucial for determining the validity of the will and the proof of oral partition, which are central to the dispute.

Arguments

Plaintiffs’ Arguments:

• The plaintiffs argued that an oral partition had taken place among the sons of Avinashi Gounder, and that the suit property was allotted to Arunachalam.
• They claimed that Arunachalam executed a will on 16.07.2003, bequeathing the suit property to them.
• They contended that they became the absolute owners of the property upon Arunachalam’s death on 30.04.2006.
• They asserted that the second defendant fraudulently obtained a sale deed for the property from the first defendant, despite the property belonging to them.
• They submitted that they were in possession of the property and cultivating the land.

Defendants’ Arguments:

• The defendants denied that any oral partition had taken place among the sons of Avinashi Gounder.
• They contested the validity of the will, stating that it was not proven in accordance with the statutory provisions.
• They argued that the suit property was part of Palaniyappan’s share, which was rightfully sold to the second defendant by Palaniyappan’s daughter, the first defendant.
• They pleaded that the suit was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, as other co-owners were not included as defendants.
• They submitted that the plaintiffs had set up a false case to deprive the defendants of their property.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section, but the core issue that the court addressed was:

1. Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the concurrent findings of fact by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, particularly regarding the proof of oral partition.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court emphasized that the will was not proven in accordance with the statutory requirements of Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1956.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• Failure to Prove Oral Partition: The Court emphasized that the plaintiffs failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove the oral partition. The documents relied upon by the High Court did not pertain to the specific survey number in question.
• Lack of Proof of the Will: The plaintiffs did not prove the will in accordance with the statutory requirements under Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1956.
• Incorrect Reversal by High Court: The High Court’s reversal of the concurrent findings of fact by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court was deemed incorrect, as the lower courts had correctly assessed the evidence.
• Non-Joinder of Necessary Parties: The Court also noted that the suit was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.

Logical Reasoning:

The Supreme Court emphasized that the High Court should not have reversed the concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts. The Court stated, “The Trial Court and the First Appellate Court had dealt with the documents Exh.A -4 and B -3, the two sale deeds, and found that these were not sufficient to prove the oral partition or in any manner establish the oral partition with respect to the survey number in question.” The Court further noted, “Only on the basis of the two sale deeds and one mortgage deed, which relate to different piece and parcels of land, the High Court recorded a perverse finding that oral partition had taken place.” The Court also observed, “The suit property was never recorded in the name of the plaintiffs or for that matter, husband of plaintiff no.1, at any time.”

Key Takeaways

• Importance of Evidence: Parties must provide sufficient evidence to prove their claims, especially in cases involving oral partitions and wills.
• Concurrent Findings: High Courts should be cautious in reversing concurrent findings of fact by lower courts unless there is a clear error in law or procedure.
• Statutory Compliance: Wills must be proven in accordance with the statutory requirements under Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1956.
• Non-Joinder of Parties: Failure to include necessary parties in a suit can lead to dismissal.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Madras and confirmed the judgments of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. The suit of the respondent-plaintiff was dismissed.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that oral partitions must be proven with sufficient evidence, and High Courts should not reverse concurrent findings of fact by lower courts unless there is a clear error in law or procedure. The Supreme Court reinforced the importance of adhering to statutory requirements for proving wills and highlighted the significance of including all necessary parties in a suit. This judgment reaffirms the principle that appellate courts should not lightly disturb the findings of fact made by trial courts based on proper appreciation of evidence.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Rajendhiran vs. Muthaiammal underscores the importance of providing sufficient evidence to prove claims in property disputes, particularly those involving oral partitions and wills. The Court’s decision to overturn the High Court’s judgment reaffirms the principle that appellate courts should be cautious in reversing concurrent findings of fact by lower courts. This case serves as a reminder of the need to adhere to statutory requirements for proving wills and the importance of including all necessary parties in a suit. The Supreme Court’s judgment has restored the decisions of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, dismissing the plaintiff’s suit.