In a significant legal battle regarding the division of property in a Christian family, the Supreme Court of India ruled on the case of Triza Kalyani John vs. John D. Abraham. The dispute centered around the inheritance rights of the late A.S. Meenakshi’s heirs, involving complex issues of family arrangements and property relinquishment claims. This landmark judgement sheds light on the intricacies of partitioning assets and the validity of settlements within Christian families.
Facts
- The suit was filed by the original plaintiffs seeking share of Triza Kalyani John (A.S. Meenakshi).
- Defendants contended that Triza Kalyani John had already taken her share in the assets of John D. Abraham, therefore plaintiffs are not entitled to any share.
- Defendants argued against partitioning the living house or allowing a non-Christian to stay in the house.
- Defendants claimed to have given Rs.50,000/- and certain gold ornaments to Triza Kalyani John as per her demand.
- Defendants asserted that Meenakshi @ Triza Kalyani John opted to marry a Hindu against the family’s wishes.
- The suit schedule property belonged to the propositus, John D. Abraham, and the plaintiffs sought one-third share in it through the suit.
- After the death of Triza Kalyani John, the husband and children filed a separate suit for partition of the property.
- The suit was held to be barred by limitation as John D. Abraham died intestate in 1964.
- Triza Kalyani John did not claim any share in the assets of John D. Abraham during her lifetime until her demise in 1986.
- The High Court allowed the appeals, stating that the Indian Succession Act allows partition of Christian property if the individual dies intestate.
- The limitation for separate possession of the suit property was considered to be 12 years from the date of John D. Abraham’s death.
- Upon the High Court’s decision, the plaintiffs were entitled to 1/4 share each, and a preliminary decree was directed to be drawn accordingly.
Also Read: Address Update Requirement: Legal Implications for Corporate Entities
Issue
- The learned trial Court framed several issues pertaining to the dispute between the plaintiffs and the defendants.
- Some of the main issues included establishing whether the plaintiffs and the defendants are members of a Hindu Joint Family.
- Another crucial aspect was to prove the late A.S. Meenakshi’s relationship to the plaintiffs along with her status as a member of the joint family and her joint possession of the disputed properties.
- The issue of whether the defendants could establish the existence of a family arrangement or settlement, specifically regarding late A.S. Meenakshi’s alleged renouncement of her claim for Rs.50,000, was also considered.
- Additionally, the court assessed the legality of the suit concerning the non-joinder of necessary parties, as well as the validity of the settlement raised by the defendants and its binding nature on the involved parties.
- Furthermore, the correctness of the suit valuation and fee payment was addressed by the court.
- Ultimately, the key aspect was determining the relief the plaintiffs are entitled to, including establishing the share, if any, that they hold in the contested properties.
Also Read: Army Discharge Case: Upholding Justice for Long Service Rendered
Arguments
- Defendant nos. 1 & 2 invested a significant amount in repairing the suit house, indicating their interest in the property.
- Argument made by the defendant’s advocate that there was a family settlement where Triza Kalyani John relinquished her share of the property.
- Opposition from the plaintiff’s side stating that in Christianity, property is divided immediately after the death of the intestate person.
- Noted that Triza Kalyani John converted to Hinduism in 1979 and did not claim her share in John D. Abraham’s property until her death in 1986.
- Claim by defendant nos. 3 to 5 found to be non-maintainable due to lack of a counterclaim.
- Disagreement on whether a Deed of Relinquishment is necessary for a family settlement to be valid.
- Contention on the limitation of the suit, with the High Court ruling it as barred by time constraints due to the delay in claiming shares.
- Recognition of adopted children’s right to inheritance in a Christian family, despite being different from Hindu Law.
- Absence of specific issue on limitation during the trial court proceedings was highlighted.
- Dispute over the High Court’s decision regarding the suit’s timeliness and the purported relinquishment of shares by Triza Kalyani John.
- Challenges to the High Court’s ruling on the legitimacy of shares for defendant nos. 3 to 5, deemed as erroneous.
- The appellants are not permitted to raise new pleas or objections after having lost before the High Court.
- Even if the appellants were the adopted children of deceased John D. Abraham, they still have a share in his property as his adopted children.
- In a suit for partition, every heir of the deceased who died intestate has a right to claim their share without filing a counterclaim.
- It is argued that defendant no.3 and the deceased Maccabeaus were children of deceased John D. Abraham from his marriage with St. Pushpa in 1951.
Also Read: Justice Served: Supreme Court Ruling on CBI Inquiry against Army Officer
Analysis
- Application for setting aside ex parte decree under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
- The decree was passed ex parte against the appellant.
- The appellant applied for setting aside the ex parte decree on the grounds of non-receipt of summons.
- Appellant’s counsel submitted that the summons were not served on the appellant as required by law.
- The Court held that the appellant has made out a case for setting aside the ex parte decree and allowed the application.
- Appellant granted an opportunity to contest the suit on merits.
- Defendant no.3 and late Maccabeaus were adopted children of John D. Abraham, not his natural born children.
- Triza Kalyani John @ Meenakshi converted to Hinduism and relinquished her right to the property for Rs.50,000/- and gold ornaments.
- The plaintiffs claimed a share in the property as heirs of Triza Kalyani John @ Meenakshi.
- Defendant no.2 contended that the original defendants 3 to 5 did not file a counterclaim for their share in the property.
- The suit was for partition among plaintiffs and defendants, where defendant 3 to 5 were not initially joined as parties.
- Defendant 3 and late Maccabeaus claimed 1/4 share each in the property.
- Defendant no.2’s appeal argued that the original defendants 3 to 5 should not have appealed as they did not file a counterclaim.
- There was a dispute regarding whether defendant 3 to 5 were entitled to a share in the suit property.
- Triza Kalyani John @ Meenakshi passed away in 1986, leaving the original plaintiffs as her heirs.
- An appeal at the instance of a person aggrieved by the judgment and decree was found to be maintainable.
- Defendant 3 to 5 were eventually joined as parties in the suit.
- The suit was amended to include defendant 3 to 5 as proper parties due to their claim to a share in the property.
- The trial court dismissed the suit partly due to the limitation and also based on the conduct and evidence related to Triza Kalyani John @ Meenakshi.
- Original defendant no.1, the wife of John D. Abraham, has passed away.
- The suit property needs to be divided amongst original defendant no.2, defendant no.3, and defendant nos. 4 & 5.
- Defendant no.3 and defendant nos. 4 & 5 are confirmed as co-sharers in the suit property belonging to John D. Abraham.
- They are entitled to their respective shares in the suit property.
Decision
- Civil Appeal arising from R.F.A. No 546/2004 is allowed.
- Impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court in R.F.A. No. 546/2004 is quashed and set aside.
- Judgment and decree passed by the trial Court dismissing the suit is restored.
- No order as to costs in the circumstances of the case.
- Original defendant no.2, original defendant no.3, original defendant nos. 4 & 5 (jointly) to have 1/3 share each in the suit property.
Case Title: PHAREZ JOHN ABRAHAM(DEAD) BY LRS. Vs. ARUL JOTHI SIVASUBRAMANIAM K. AND ORS. ETC. ETC.
Case Number: C.A. No.-007207-007208 / 2008
