SADASIVAM versus K. DORAISAMY

SADASIVAM versus K. DORAISAMY

The sale deed executed by Marappa Gounder in favour of the respondent must be held invalid as it was executed without consideration, and based on an understanding that it was not to be acted upon. The will executed by Karuppanna Gounder in favour of the respondent was genuine. Exclusive possession of one co-sharer does not constitute adverse possession unless accompanied by ouster.—Hence, respondent's title to half share under will is upheld, but appellant's share in joint family properties is decreed after setting aside the sale deed.

Parties
Appellant: Sadasivam; Respondent: K. Doraisamy
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
09 February 1996
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Decision
Outcome
appeals allowed in part
Legal Topics
Validity of Sale Deed, Adverse Possession, Genuineness of Will, Joint Family Property, Consideration in Sale Deed, Legal Necessity for Sale by Karta
Property Law Succession Law Validity of Sale Deed Adverse Possession Genuineness of Will Joint Family Property Consideration in Sale Deed Legal Necessity for Sale by Karta

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sadasivam

Appellant

K. Doraisamy

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sale deed executed by Marappa Gounder in favour of the respondent was valid or a sham document
  2. 2 Whether the will executed by Karuppanna Gounder in favour of the respondent was genuine
  3. 3 Whether exclusive possession by the respondent amounts to adverse possession against other co-sharers

Ratio Decidendi

The sale deed executed by Marappa Gounder in favour of the respondent must be held invalid as it was executed without consideration, and based on an understanding that it was not to be acted upon. The will executed by Karuppanna Gounder in favour of the respondent was genuine. Exclusive possession of one co-sharer does not constitute adverse possession unless accompanied by ouster.—Hence, respondent's title to half share under will is upheld, but appellant's share in joint family properties is decreed after setting aside the sale deed.

Court Disposition

appeals allowed in part

Orders

  • Judgments and decrees in AS. Nos. 1507 and 1508 of 1988 arising out of O.S. No. 187 of 1985 and O.S. No. 168 of 1987 are set aside.
  • The appellant's half share in joint family properties is decreed after setting aside the sale deed dated 10.9.84 executed by Marappa in favour of respondent Doraisamy.