Supreme Court Overturns Madras High Court’s “Self-Contradictory” Order in Property Dispute
The Supreme Court recently set aside a 2017 decision by the Madras High Court, which had reversed a trial court’s ruling in a civil property dispute case. The apex court’s intervention was prompted by perceived inconsistencies in the High Court’s judgment.
The civil dispute centered around a mother and her daughters (the plaintiffs) who filed a suit against her son (the defendant) over specific immovable assets left behind by her deceased husband.
At the heart of the case were two partition deeds. The first, from 1995, was signed by all involved parties but remained unregistered. A subsequent partition deed was executed and registered by the parties in 2000. Both these deeds indicated that the immovable property was allocated to the son (defendant).
The plaintiffs challenged the authenticity of these deeds in their civil suit, asserting their rights to the property in question. They effectively questioned these deeds, staking a claim on the immovable property.
The trial court, after examining the case, dismissed the plaintiffs’ suit. It concluded that
“a valid partition deed had been duly signed by the parties.”
The court further observed that the deed was signed
“in the Registrar’s office”
and, given that
“all the parties knew English, being well educated,”
there was a clear understanding of the document’s contents.
However, the Madras High Court’s subsequent intervention in 2017 overturned the trial court’s decision. This led to the matter being escalated to the Supreme Court. After a thorough review, the apex court found the High Court’s order to be “self-contradictory” and thus decided to set it aside, emphasizing the importance of consistency and clarity in judicial decisions.
