Order VII Rule 7 CPC| Court’s Discretion To Grant Smaller Relief Than Claimed Not Available When Plaintiff Sets Up Different Case From Established One: Supreme Court

The Apex Court was dealing with an appeal challenging an order of the Madras High Court passed in a second appeal.

The Division Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva held, “Further, be it noted that her suit claim was that she was the absolute owner of the entire suit properties under the registered gift deed dated 13.12.1990 and that she was put in possession. Her claim of ownership over the entire suit properties is not valid and tenable in law and her claim of being put in possession was not established on facts. In that regard, we may note that Order VII Rule 7 CPC authorizes the Court to grant a smaller relief than the larger relief claimed, if entitlement therefor is made out on facts. However, such discretion would not be available when a plaintiff sets up an altogether different case from the one ultimately found established on facts and in law by the Court.”

Senior Advocate V. Raghavachari represented the Appellant while Advocate R. Sudhinder represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The matter revolved around an original suit filed by Maragadham, the plaintiff, before the District Munsiff, Tirupattur, seeking declaration of her title,, recovery of possession and consequential reliefs in relation to certain extents of land in different survey numbers of Mallapalli Village, Vellore District. She asserted title over the suit properties under the registered gift settlement deed executed in her favour by her grandfather, Kuttiyappa Goundar, first defendant. She asserted that the defendants failed to hand over possession of the property to her despite her entreaties and, accordingly, instituted the suit seeking the reliefs. Her claims were contested by the second and third defendants, Periyaraja and Muniammal, and their son, Vijayakumar, fourth defendant.

The third defendant, Muniammal, was the daughter of Kuttiyappa Goundar, first defendant, through his first wife, Muniyammal. It was her case that her father, the first defendant, had no rights over the suit properties and, therefore, the gift deed executed by him did not bind her. She also denied that possession was delivered to the plaintiff pursuant to the said gift deed. The Trial Court decreed the suit, opining that the suit properties devolved upon Kuttiyappa Goundar, first defendant, upon the death of his wife, and he had absolute right to gift the same to his granddaughter to the exclusion of his other heirs. The First Appellate Court reversed the judgment and decree of the Trial Court. The Second Appeal came to be dismissed.

Reasoning

On a perusal of the facts, the Bench noted that Kuttiyappa Goundar was married to Muniyammal and they had only one daughter, named Muniammal. The suit properties belonged to Muniyammal, having come to her from her father, Ammakara Goundar. Muniyammal died after the Act of 1956 came into effect.

Dealing with the aspect of gift deed, the Bench noted that the same did not have any impact on the validity of the gift deed executed by Kuttiyappa Goundar in favour of Maragadham. As per the Bench, the First Appellate Court and the High Court rightly held that the properties of Muniyammal, who died intestate, would devolve under Section 15(1)(a) upon her only daughter and her husband in equal shares. “Be it noted that this undivided half share in the hands of Kuttiyappa Goundar did not partake the character of ‘coparcenary property’ and belonged to him absolutely. He, therefore, had every right in law to gift or alienate the same to anyone, including a total stranger. There was no need for him to take the consent of the co-owner, Muniammal, before parting with his undivided half share in the suit properties. The issue of such consent being obtained may have arisen had the property been coparcenary property, but not when the undivided half share was the absolute property of Kuttiyappa Goundar”, it held.

Considering that the properties remained joint and without partition by metes and bounds, the Bench held that the plaintiff could not have sought the relief of recovery of possession of that half share.

It was further noticed that contrary to the plaintiff’s claim of ownership over the suit properties in their entirety, she had a right only over an undivided half share in the suit properties and no more. Considering that she sought declaration of title under the registered gift deed, the Bench stated that she would be entitled to such declaration only in respect of an undivided half share in the suit properties thereunder. As per the Bench, she would have to seek partition of the suit properties by metes and bounds to actually claim her separate half share. “Such relief of partition cannot be granted at this stage as the same is entirely alien to her suit claims”, it added.

Keeping in view that her right to a half share in the suit properties already stood decided and only the crystallisation of that right on the ground remained to be determined by way of partition of the suit properties by metes and bounds, the Bench asked the jurisdictional Court to decide the plaintiff’s suit for partition to as expeditiously as possible. The Bench thus allowed the appeal in part and the set aside the judgments and decrees of the Courts below to the extent they held otherwise.

Cause Title: Maragadham v. Periyaraja (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 757)

Appearance

Appellant: Senior Advocate V. Raghavachari, AOR G. Balaji, Advocates Neeleshwar Parvani, Arzu Paul, Prasannaa

Respondent: Advocates R. Sudhinder, AOR R. Gopalakrishnan

Click here to read/download Judgment