NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

 Civil Appeal Nos.9558-9559 of 2018

(Arising out of Special Leave Petitions (C) Nos.9811-12 of 2017)

L. Ponnayal @ Lakshmi    …… APPELLANT (S) Versus

Karuppannan (Dead)  Thr. L.R. Sengoda Gounder & Anr.    ……..RESPONDENT (S)

J U D G M E N T

L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.

Leave granted.    

1. The  Appellant  and  her  mother  filed  a  Civil  Suit  for

Partition and separate possession which was dismissed

by  the  Subordinate  Judge,  Sankagiri.  The  High  Court

affirmed the  judgment  and decree  of  trial  court.   The

Appellant filed a Review Application which was rejected

by the High Court.   Aggrieved by the judgment of the

High Court in the first Appeal and the Review Application,

the Appellant has approached this Court.  2. On 15th November, 2016, a request was made by the

Appellant to discharge A. Lakshminarayanan, the learned

1

Advocate-on-Record  who  filed  the  above  Appeals.  The

said Advocate-on-Record was discharged and the matter

was  listed  for  further  hearing.   After  several

adjournments,  notice  was  issued  on  28th March,  2017

after  condoning  the  delay  of  2088  days  in  filing  the

Special  Leave  Petition  against  the  judgment  in  first

Appeal and 1405 days in filing the Special Leave Petition

from  the  judgment  in  Review  Application.   As  the

Appellant  in-  person  was  conversant  only  in  Tamil

language,  we  requested  Mrs.  V.  Mohna,  Ld.  Senior

Advocate to appear for the Appellant in-person.  Later,

Mrs. V. Mohna, Ld. Senior Advocate informed us that the

Appellant in-person is not willing to take her assistance.

The Appellant in-person who was present in the Court on

4th September, 2018 requested that she does not want

Mrs. V. Mohna to appear for her.  We discharged Mrs. V.

Mohna, Ld. Senior Counsel from the case.  The Appellant

in-person  insisted  on  making  submissions  in  Tamil

language  and  she  requested  for  a  translator.   We

declined the request of the Appellant in-person who had

not utilized the opportunity of having the services of a

2

Senior Advocate who is well-versed with Tamil language.

We  gave  opportunity  to  the  parties  to  submit  their

written  submissions,  if  any,  within  one  week  from  4th

September, 2018 and reserved the matter for judgment. 3. Appavu  Gounder  had  two  sons  namely Athappa

Gounder and Karuppannan Gounder.  Athappa Gounder

was married to Kandayi  (Plaintiff No.2).   The Appellant

(Plaintiff No.1) is the daughter of Athappa Gounder and

Kandayi. Karuppannan is Defendant No.1 in the suit and

his son Sengoda Gounder is Defendant No.2.  Defendant

No.3 Komarasamy Gounder is the purchaser of a part of

‘A’  schedule  property.   As  per  the  plaint,  there  was a

registered Partition Deed on 22nd April, 1948 between the

branches of Appavu Gounder and Pavayee and the plaint

‘A’  schedule  properties  fell  to  the  share  of  Appavu

Gounder and his two sons. The Appellant along with her

mother claimed a share in the ‘A’ schedule properties.    4. Hereinafter, the parties will be referred to as arrayed

in  the  plaint  in  O.S.  No.130  of  1987  before  the

Subordinate Judge, Sankagiri.   The case of the Plaintiff

No.1 is that she was the only surviving heir of Athappa

3

Gounder  who during  his  lifetime suffered  from mental

illness and was under the control of his father Appavu

Gounder.  Athappa Gounder was living with his brother

Karuppannan after the death of his father.  Due to the

constant harassment of her husband, Plaintiff No.2 had

no other alternative except to shift  to her matrimonial

home at Veppamarathupatti, Edappady.  It was stated in

the plaint that Defendant No.1, taking advantage of the

lunacy of Athappa Gounder, created a Sale Deed dated

15th September,  1949  by  which  his  properties  were

transferred  to  Defendant  No.1.   The  Settlement  Deed

dated 6th December, 1958 executed by Appavu Gounder

in  favour  of  Defendant  No.2-  Sengoda  Gounder  was

seriously disputed by the Plaintiffs.  The sale of a portion

of  the  ‘A’  schedule  property  to  Defendant  No.3  by

registered  Sale  Deed  dated  9th November,  1964  was

illegal and void according to the Plaintiffs.  The Plaintiffs

further contended that a rig along with a support lorry

which are shown as ‘B’ schedule property in the plaint

were  purchased  by  Defendant  Nos.  1  and  2  from the

income that was derived from ‘A’ schedule property.   As

4

the  Defendant  Nos.  1  and  2  were  not  agreeing  for  a

partition  as  requested  by  the  Plaintiffs,  there  was  no

other alternative except to file a suit.     5. Defendant No.1 filed a written statement in which it

was stated that the registered Partition Deed dated 22nd

April,  1948,  the  registered  Sale  Deed  dated  15th

September,  1949  and  the  registered  Settlement  Deed

dated 6th December, 1958 are valid.  The Defendant No.1

stated that there was severance of the joint family status

more than 40 years ago and the Plaintiffs did not have

any right to seek a fresh partition.  The Defendant No.1

further stated that the suit was barred by limitation and

not  maintainable.   The  Defendant  No.1  also  raised  a

defense of adverse possession.   6. The  trial  court  framed  the  following  issues  for

consideration:   “  1.  The  partition  deed  came into  existence  on 22.04.1948 binds the plaintiffs?

2. Whether the plaintiff has got right to object the settlement deed dated 6.12.1958?

3. Whether the plaintiffs’ have got right to object the sale deed executed by 3rd defendants husband in favour of 1st Defendant’s name on 15.9.1949?

5

4.  Whether the suit is barred by limitations?  5.  Regarding  the  ‘A’  Schedule  property  whether 1,2 defendants have got adverse possessions?

6. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to partition, separate possession, mense profits?

7. What other Reliefs? ”  

7. After  a  detailed  consideration  of  the  evidence  on-

record and the submissions that were made by both the

sides, the trial court dismissed the suit.  The trial court

observed that  the  Plaintiffs  are bound by the Partition

Deed dated 22nd April, 1948, that they have no right to

question the Sale Deed dated                 15 th September,

1949 executed by the husband of Plaintiff No.2 in favour

of Defendant No.1 and the Settlement Deed dated     6 th

December, 1958 executed by Appavu Gounder in favour

of Defendant No.2.  The trial court further decided that

the suit was barred by limitation and Defendant Nos. 1

and 2 acquired title over the schedule properties in the

Plaint by way of adverse possession.   8. The  High  Court  framed  the  following  issues  for

consideration:  

6

“ i. The plaintiffs are bound by the partition deed dated 22.4.1948; ii.  The  plaintiffs  have  no  right  to  question  the settlement deed dated 6.12.1958 executed by the Appavu  Gounder  in  favour  of  the  second defendant;

iii. The plaintiffs have no right to question the sale deed dated 15.9.1949 executed by the husband of the  second  plaintiff  in  favour  of  the  first defendant;

iv. The suit barred by limitation;

v. The defendants 1 and 2 preferred the title by adverse possession; and  

vi. The plaintiffs are not entitled to the reliefs as prayed for by them. ”

9. The High Court rejected the contention of the Plaintiffs

that they are not bound by the Partition Deed dated 22nd

April,  1948.   The  High  Court  found  that  properties

allotted  to  Appavu  Gounder  and  his  two  sons  were

described in the ‘B’ schedule to the Partition Deed date

22nd April, 1948 which was marked as exhibit-A1 in the

suit.   The  aforesaid  ‘B’  schedule  properties  were

described as ‘A’ schedule properties in the suit filed by

the Plaintiffs.   The High Court proceeded to hold that

there was no evidence that was adduced by the Plaintiffs

7

to support the contention that the Partition Deed dated

22nd April,  1948  was  not  binding  on  them.    Appavu

Gounder settled his  share of  the properties allotted to

him in the Partition Deed dated 22nd April, 1948 in favour

of  his  Grandson  i.e. Defendant  No.2  by  a  Settlement

Deed dated 6th December, 1958.  According to the High

Court, the Plaintiffs did not have any right to challenge

the said Settlement Deed.  10. The contention of the Plaintiffs that the Sale

Deed executed by Athappa Gounder on 15th September,

1949 was not binding on them was also not accepted by

the High Court.  While dealing with this point, the High

Court referred to a Compromise Decree that was passed

in O.S.  No.18 of 1953 which was filed by the Plaintiffs

against  Athappa  Gounder,  Karuppannan  Gounder  and

Appavu Gounder before the Sub-Judge, Salem.  In O.S.

No.18  of  1953  the  Plaintiffs,  claimed  maintenance,

recovery of  arrears of  maintenance from 1st July,  1949

upto  the  date  of  the  suit,  recovery  of  jewellery  and

cancellation  of  the  Sale  Deed  dated  15th September,

1949  executed  by  Athappa  Gounder  in  favour  of

8

Defendant No.1 in O.S. No.130 of 1987.  The High Court

took notice of the averments made in O.S. No.18 of 1953

by the Plaintiffs to the effect that Athappa ill-treated his

wife  and  daughter  i.e. the  Plaintiffs-herein  and  forced

them out of the house and refused to maintain them.   It

was the case of the Plaintiffs in O.S. No.18 of 1953 that

the Sale Deed dated 15th September, 1949 was brought

into  existence  only  for  the  purpose  of  defeating  their

claim over the property.  The terms of compromise were

to the effect that the Defendants in O.S. No.18 of 1953

shall  convey  the  entire  properties  specified  in  the

schedule therein in favour of Plaintiff No.2 on deposit of

Rs.6,000/- within a period of six months. In the event of

registration of the said Sale Deed,  Plaintiff No.2 would

not  have  any  right  to  claim  maintenance  against  the

Defendants-therein.   In  the  event  of  Plaintiff  No.2  not

depositing the amount of Rs.6,000/- within the stipulated

time,  she  would  forfeit  maintenance  due  to  her  and

Plaintiff No.1.  Plaintiffs shall  be entitled only to future

maintenance at the rate of Rs.10/- for Plaintiff No.2 and

Rs.5/- for Plaintiff No.1 until her marriage and Rs.500/- for

9

the  marriage  expenses  of  Plaintiff  No.1.   There  is  no

dispute that Plaintiff No.2 did not deposit Rs.6,000/- as

per the terms of the compromise within the stipulated

time.   On the basis  of  the above discussion,  the High

Court  concluded  that  the  Plaintiffs  lost  their  right  to

challenge  the  Sale  Deed  dated  15th September,  1949.

The High  Court,  further,  held  that  the  said  Sale  Deed

which was challenged in the year 1953 by filing the O.S.

No. 18 of 1953 cannot be the subject matter of another

challenge after a lapse of over 30 years.  The High Court,

thus, approved the judgment of the trial court that the

suit  is  barred  by  limitation.   The  contention  of  the

Plaintiffs  that  the  Defendants  took  advantage  of  the

mental illness of Athappa Gounder and manipulated the

documents in their favour was also not accepted by the

High Court.  The High Court referred to the suit filed by

the Plaintiffs in O.S. No.18 of 1953 in which they did not

even  whisper  about  the  mental  illness  of  Athappa

Gounder.   The  conclusion  of  the  trial  court  regarding

adverse possession in favour of the Defendants was also

10

upheld by the High Court in view of the peculiar facts of

the case.   11.  We  have  perused  the  written  submissions

filed by the Appellant in-person. The Appellant has relied

upon the Partition Deed dated 6th December, 1937 and

the  Deed  of  Settlement  dated  6th August  1942.

According to the Appellant, the Deed of Partition dated

6th December,  1937  was  entered  into  between  her

grandfather late Shri Appavu Gounder and his two sons

late Shri  Karunappanan Gounder (Defendant No.1) and

late  Shri  Athappa  Gounder.   The  Deed  of  Settlement

dated 6th August 1942 executed by her father Athappa

Gounder in favour  of her grandfather  Appavu Gounder

showed the inability of Athappa Gounder to cultivate his

land.   According  to  the  said  Settlement  Deed  dated

6.8.1942,  the  property  should  be  handed  over  to  the

legal  heirs  of  Athappa  Gounder.   As  the  said  two

documents were neither part of the pleadings in the Suit

nor was an issue framed regarding the said documents,

we are afraid that we cannot adjudicate on the issues

pertaining to the said documents.  Civil Suits are decided

11

on the basis of pleadings and the issues framed and the

parties to the Suit cannot be permitted to travel beyond

the pleadings.1   12.  The dispute raised by the Appellant pertains

to her right to partition of ancestral properties that fell to

the share of her father late Athappa Gounder pursuant to

the registered Partition Deed dated 22nd April 1948. The

Plaintiffs prayed for division of the suit properties on the

basis  of  the  registered  Partition  Deed dated 22nd April

1948.   The Appellant  cannot  be  permitted  to  contend

that the Plaintiffs are not bound by the Partition Deed

dated 22nd April 1948 when the foundation for the claim

of the Plaintiffs is the said Partition Deed.  13. The  registered  Sale  Deed  dated  15th

September 1949 executed by Athappa Gounder in favour

of Defendant No.1 is challenged on the ground that there

was no necessity for Athappa Gounder to take loans from

third parties.  The Appellant further stated in the written

submissions that the Compromise Decree in O.S. No. 18

of 1953 cannot preclude her from challenging the Sale

1 (1987) 2 SCC 555 – Ram Swarup Gupta v. Bishun Narain Inter College and AIR  1956 SC 231- J.K. Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. v. Mazdoor Union  

12

Deed dated 15th September 1949.  There is no dispute

that  the  Sale  Deed  dated  15th September  1949  was

challenged in O.S. No. 18 of 1953.  The Plaintiff No.2 did

not comply with the condition of the Compromise Decree

regarding the deposit of Rs.6000/- within the stipulated

time whereafter she was entitled for transfer of property

in her favour.  The High Court held that the Appellant has

lost  her  right  to  question  the  Sale  Deed  dated  15th

September  1949  again,  that  too,  after  an  inordinate

delay.   As  such,  the  Suit  filed  in  1987  was  barred  by

limitation.  The High Court rejected the submissions of

the  Appellant  that  Athappa  Gounder  was  of  unsound

mind  and  the  Defendant  No.1  took  advantage  and

manipulated the Sale Deed dated. 15th September 1949.

We are in agreement with the findings of the High Court.

  14. What  remains  to  be  seen  is  whether  the

Settlement Deed dated 6th December 1958 executed by

Appavu Gounder in favour of Defendant No.2 is valid and

binding on the Appellants.  There is no evidence adduced

by the Appellant to prove the contrary.  The High Court is

13

right in its conclusion that Appavu Gounder had a right to

settle the property that fell to his share in the Partition

Deed dated 22nd April 1948 in favour of his grandson.           15. For  the  aforementioned  reasons,  we  see  no

reason to interfere with the judgments of the High Court.

Accordingly, the Appeals are dismissed.   

……………………..……..J. [S.A. BOBDE]

…………..………………..J.  [L. NAGESWARA RAO]    

NEW DELHI, September 17, 2018    

14