TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2003 (3) TMI 787
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e and during the life time of Natesa Pillai, on their insistence, cash representing her 1/3rd share in the properties was given to her about 25 years back and therefore, Ponnammal and her son Radhakrishnan had no right in those properties. Ponnammal died thereafter. Visalakshi and the plaintiff had sold 1 acre 58 cents in S. No. 239/3 and S. No. 239/4 to Pattammal, under the sale deed dated 25.3.1977 and the said sale deed was attested by Radhakrishnan, son of Ponnammal, with the knowledge of the contents thereof. The purchaser has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. Visalakshi sold 50 cents, which she got in S. NO. 226/2, to the defendant under the sale deed, dated 5.5.1980, but had retained her 1/3rd share in the well, 3 HP Motor and pumpset and service connection. The said 50 cents form south eastern corner of 1 acre 89 cents in S. No. 226/2 and the suit land is the remaining land in the said survey number. The defendant proclaimed that he had recently purchased 50 cents in the suit property from R. Radhakrishnan, son of Ponnammal. According to the plaintiff, the sale is not valid and binding upon her. The defendant is estopped from denying the title of the plaintiff, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e court allowed the appeal. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff' has preferred this appeal. 6. I have heard the learned advocate for the appellant and the respondent and both of them have strenuously argued about their respective claims and the plaintiff claims estoppel against the defendant and the same was very much denied and disputed by the defendant. 7. Natesa Pillai had 3 daughters and also left certain properties. According to the plaintiff, after the death of Natesa Pillai, she and Visalakshi filed a suit in OS. No. 41/1976, before the Sub Court, Chingleput, which ended in passing a compromise decree, in which the suit property was allotted to the plaintiff. It is their case that Ponnammal was given cash equivalent to 1/3rd share in the properties during the life time of Natesa Pillai and therefore, Ponnammal and her son Radhakrishnan had no right in the properties left by Natesa Pillai and because of that, Ponnammal was not made as a party to the partition suit. 8. The defendant denies the payment of cash equivalent to 1/3rd share said to have been paid to Ponnammal by her father during his life time and further contends that the suit for partition between Al....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er under Ex.B10? 11. With the above said back drop, now we have to consider, whether the principle of estoppel would be applicable to Radhakrishnan, as he has singed Ex.A11? 12. It is the contention of the learned advocate for the appellant that Ex.A11, sale deed dated 25.3.1977 executed by Visalakshi and Alamelu Ammal in favour of Pattammal, in which Radhakrishnan joined as an attesting witness. It is also pointed out that Ex.A11 was prepared to be executed initially only by two persons, viz. Visalakshi and Alamelu and the same is evident from para 2 of Ex.A11, wherein it recites, (This judgments has been sourced from the court website. The tables in the judgment may not be aligned) Though Radhakrishnan was subsequently joined along with them in the execution of the sale deed, his name was not included in the place of vendors in para 2 of Ex.A11. It is also pointed out that the purpose of Radhakrishnan joining in the execution of Ex.A11 is set forth at para 5 of Ex.A11, wherein it is stated, (This judgments has been sourced from the court website. The tables in the judgment may not be aligned) That shows Radhakrishnan was familiar with the recitals in Ex.A11, in which, the v....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ards the use to which the plot may be put." In that case, the plea of estoppel was taken and accepted by the first two courts. But, it was held in para 8 that, "Evidence regarding the representation is vague and true facts were known to those who purchased the sub plots after plot No. 19 was sold to Manohari Devi in 1946. Besides, estoppel is but a rule of evidence and except in cases like those under Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act, when a grant is fed by estoppel, the rule does not operate to create interest in property regarding which the representation is made." 15. Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act deals with 'Transfer by unauthorised person, who subsequently acquires interest in property" and it states, "Where a person fraudulently or erroneously represents that he is authorised to transfer certain immovable property and professes to transfer such property for consideration, such transfer shall, at the option of the transferee, operate on any interest which the transferor may acquire in such property at any time during which the contract of transfer subsists. Nothing in this section shall impair the right of transferees in good faith for considerati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the earlier suit in OS. No. 41/1976, in which Alamelu Ammal and Visalakshi alone have partitioned the properties and Radhakrishnan and Ponnammal were excluded. Knowing full well of the said decree, it has been recited in Ex.A11 that Radhakrishnan has joined as a co-executant in Ex.A11. Though Radhakrishnan gave evidence and stated that he has received Rs.500/- towards his share, there is no recital to that effect in Ex.A11 and therefore, his evidence is an improvement. It cannot be said that he has merely joined in the execution as a co-executant nor he is a confirming party of the said sale alone, as contended by the respondent/defendant. But, on the other hand, it is made out that he had joined as a co-executant in Ex.A11, accepting the sale deed and if the contention of the defendant is true that his share amount was paid, nothing prevented in mentioning the same in Ex.A11 and in the absence of the same, it would amount to accepting the decree in OS. No. 41/1976 between Alamelu Ammal and Visalakshi, to which Radhakrishnan was not a party. But, his joining in Ex.A11 with his eyes wide opened would amount to his acceptance of the decree in the earlier suit. Applying the ratio of t....