(Ranjan Gogoi and R. Banumathi, JJ.)
Marayammal and Others ___________________________ Appellant(s);
v.
K.S. Venkidusamy and Another ___________________ Respondent(s).
Civil Appeal No(s) 2793 of 2012, decided on April 4, 2018
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
1. By the impugned order passed by the High Court the respondent No. 1 – K.S. Venkidusamy has been treated as Class-I heir and held to be entitled to one-fourth (1/4th) share in the ‘A’ Schedule property which is the bone of contention between the parties. The claim of the respondent to the ‘B’ Schedule property has been given up by the said respondent in the proceedings before the High Court.
2. The basis on which the claim of the respondent to the ‘A’ Scheduled property has sought to be defeated is Release Deed (Exhibit A-2) alleged to have been executed by the respondent in respect of both ‘A’ and ‘B’ Scheduled properties. According to the respondent, the Release Deed was a sham document.
3. Be that as it may, having perused the Release Deed we find that a total consideration of Rs. 27,000/- was required to be given to the respondent(s) out of which a sum of Rs. 2,000/- only had been paid to him. There is no material on record to show the payment of balance amount of Rs. 25,000/- as mentioned in the Release Deed. The consideration for the release, therefore, has not been established.
4. In such circumstances if the High Court has held that the respondent would be entitled to one-fourth (1/4th) share of the suit property on the basis of his rights as a Class-I heir under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 the view taken and the conclusion reached cannot be faulted so as to warrant interference in the present appeal.
5. Consequently, we dismiss the appeal and affirmed the order of the High Court in so far as ‘A’ Schedule property is concerned.
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 2793/2012
Marayammal & Ors _____________________________ Appellant(s)
v.
K.S. Venkidusamy & Anr. ________________________ Respondent(s)
Date: 04-04-2018 This appeal was called on for hearing today.
(Before Ranjan Gogoi and R. Banumathi, JJ.)
For Appellant(s) Ms. Anzu K. Varkey, Adv.
Mr. V.N. Subramaniam, Adv. (N/P)
for Ms. Madhusmita Bora, AOR
For Respondent(s) Mr. Jayant Muth Raj, Adv.
Mrs. Malavika Jayanth, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
ORDER
6. The appeal is dismissed in terms of the signed order.
———
