Karumanda
Gounder Vs. Muthuswamy Gounder & Ors [1996] INSC 42 (10 January 1996)
Punchhi,
M.M.Punchhi, M.M.Manohar Sujata V. (J)
CITATION:
1996 AIR 1002 1996 SCC (1) 720 JT 1996 (1) 205 1996 SCALE (1)235
ACT:
HEAD NOTE:
O R D
E R
The
appellant herein, Karumanda Gounder, was one of the defendants in the suit. He
was a brother to Komaraswamy Gounder. At one point of time they had joint
properties with their father. A partition took place between them which was put
to some doubts. Out of the properties allotted to Komaraswamy Gounder, a parcel
of land was gifted by him to M.K. Komaraswamy Gounder. When Muthuswamy Gounder
the plaintiff-respondent wanted to purchase that property, he persuaded the
donor and the done to sell the property to him in unison. That having
occasioned, resistance was faced by the plaintiff-respondent from the present
appellant on the ostensible plea that the properties were joint. The
plaintiff-respondent concededly after sale had not been put to possession of
the property. This led to the suit for possession by the plaintiff-respondent.
Amongst
other pleas, the star plea of the appellant was that his brother Komaraswamy Gounder
was a lunatic; hence, he was incapable of selling or gifting the property.
Further there had been no partition and the question of the sold property
having fallen to the share of Komaraswamy Gounder did not arise. When the
parties went to issue before the trial court, the plaintiff-respondent failed
as the court took the view that Komaraswamy Gounder was mildly a lunatic;
the
properties were joint and that the alleged interest in the properties by the
appellant, was justified. The High Court, on appeal, however, reversed the
findings recording that Komaraswamy Gounder was not a lunatic; the properties
amongst brothers stood partitioned as conceded to by the appellant, and that
the property in dispute had fallen to the share of Komaraswamy Gounder. On that
basis, the right of the appellant to question the gift and the sale deed was negatived
inasmuch as on date he had no right over the property. Thus, the High Court put
the appellant to the position of an interloper; not even a proper party to the
suit, what to talk of a necessary party. It is to upset these findings that the
appellant is before us, in appeal.
We have
heard Mr. A.T.M. Sampath, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. He has
taken us through the lengthy judgments prepared by the subordinate court as
also that of the High Court. It is prominently noticeable that no effort ever
had been made by the appellant to have his brother Komaraswamy Gounder declared
as a lunatic from the District Court under the Lunacy Act. Even on the findings
recorded by the subordinate Court, there is hardly any substance to entertain
the view that he was a lunatic. A person has to be adjudged a lunatic whereafter
certain consequences may follow. There is no such thing as a mild lunatic'. A
person may be of a weak intellect; incapable of managing his affairs, but that
per se, would not make him a lunatic. Once partition stands conceded and the
property in dispute fallen to the share of Komaraswamy Gounder and the plea of
his being a lunatic rejected, the appellant has no stake left to pursue the
appeal. It is far-fetched to assume that Komaraswamy Gounder would some day die
intestate and issueless on which the appellant might have a claim to succeed to
his estate. Even this plea is presumptuous, because the property in dispute has
already been gifted and then sold to the plaintiff-respondent. The claim of the
plaintiff-respondent for possession,thus, was legitimate in the facts and
circumstances. The questions raised herein by Mr. Sampath, learned counsel, to
upset the view of the High Court are essentially those of fact. It would be
difficult for us to upset those orders of the High Court in this jurisdiction.
The
appeal accordingly fails and is hereby dismissed.
No
costs.
Back
Pages: 1 2
