Madras High Court
Muthukannu vs Karuppanan on 21 September, 2020
Author: N.Seshasayee
Bench: N.Seshasayee
S.A.(MD)No.328 of 2015
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 21.09.2020
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SESHASAYEE
S.A.(MD)No.328 of 2015
and
M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2015
1.Muthukannu
2.Pitchaiammal
3.Pandiammal ... Appellants / Appellants / Plaintiffs
-Vs-
1.Karuppanan
2.Duraisamy
3.Subban
4.The Assistant Engineer (Rural),
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Siluthur Village,
Dindigul District.
5.Pichaiammal (Died)
6.Chellammal
7.Rajakumari
8.Ganga
9.Manikandan
10.Ramu
11.Lakshmanan ...Respondents/Respondents/Defendants
(Respondents 9 to 11 brought as Lrs of deceased 5th Respdt
as per the order of Court dated 30.09.2015 made in
M.P(MD).Nos.2 ot 4/2015 in S.A(MD).No.328/2015 by MDJ)
Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure
Code, against the judgment and decree dated 12.08.2009 passed in
A.S.No.109 of 2006 by the Principal Subordinate Judge, Dindigul,
confirming the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.450 of 2002 dated
http://www.judis.nic.in
1/6
S.A.(MD)No.328 of 2015
16.10.2006 passed by the learned Second Additional District Munsif,
Dindigul.
For Appellants : Mr.Raghuvaran Gopalan
for Mr.A.Thirumurthy
For R1 to R3 : Mr.A.R.Sethupathy
For R4 : Mr.M.Sureshkumar
JUDGMENT
The plaintiffs, who have lost the suit for partition of the suit properties successively before the Courts below, have approached this Court in this Second Appeal. The parties would be referred to by their rank before the trial Court.
2.The admitted facts on both sides is that the suit properties originally belonged to one Karuppanan Servai; that on his demise, the properties devolved on his sons, Vellayan Servai, Maruthai Servai and Chidambaram Servai. According to the plaintiffs, Vellayan Servai died issueless and his right in the property devolved on his other two brothers. On the demise of Maruthai Servai, his right on the property devolved on his son Muthian Poosari, after whose demise, the rights on the property devolved on his sons, who are arrayed as defendants 1 and 2. So far as Chidambaram Servai is concerned, on his death his son Veerasamy succeeded to the suit property and on his death, the properties devolved equally on his three daughters, who are the plaintiffs. According to them, http://www.judis.nic.in 2/6 S.A.(MD)No.328 of 2015 the properties remained undivided and the defendants are attempting to alienate the properties. There were exchange of notices between the parties, but the defendants did not agree for a partition. Hence, the suit was laid.
3.The defendants would contend that;
a) contrary to what the plaintiffs have alleged, Vellayan Servai did leave his daughter Lakshmi as his heir;
b) and that even during their life time, Vellayan Servai, Marudhai Servai and Chidambaram Servai have orally divided their properties, pursuant to which, there is no property that remained to be partitioned between the parties.
4.The matter went to trial and before the trial Court, both sides adduced their respective oral and documentary evidence. While the plaintiffs did not produce any significant documentary evidence, the defendants have produced Ex.B9, a sale deed which the plaintiffs' father Veerasamy had executed in favour of certain Pattani and Ex.B11, settlement deed, which the plaintiffs' parents, Veerasamy and Akkammal had executed in favour of the third plaintiff. This apart, under Ex.B2, Vellayan Servai had sold some properties allotted to him to certain Muthu Servai.
http://www.judis.nic.in 3/6 S.A.(MD)No.328 of 2015
5.Based on the fact that Vellayan Servai and Veerasamy have dealt with certain properties as their independent property, the trial Court had found a preponderating probability that there was an oral partition and the parties to the partition have conducted themselves consistent with that partition. Needless to state, the trial Court dismissed the suit. The matter reached the first appellate Court and the first appellate Court too confirmed the said decree.
6. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials placed on record.
7. The learned counsel for the appellants made his submissions much in accordance with the allegations in the pleadings but, this Court is least convinced about the merit of the case advanced. This Court does not find any convincing answer to Exs.B9, B11 and B2 documents and also the testimony of the third plaintiff as P.W.1, which the trial court had relied on along with the documentary evidence in non-suiting the plaintiffs.
8.In conclusion, this Court does not find any merit in this appeal. Accordingly, this second appeal is dismissed and the Judgment and Decree dated 12.08.2009 passed in A.S.No.109 of 2006 by the learned http://www.judis.nic.in 4/6 S.A.(MD)No.328 of 2015 Principal Subordinate Judge, Dindigul, confirming the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.450 of 2002, dated 16.10.2006 passed by the learned Second Additional District Munsif, Dindigul is upheld. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
21.09.2020 Index :yes/No Internet:yes/No ta/tsg-2 To:
1.The Principal Subordinate Court, Dindigul.
2.The Second Additional District Munsif Court, Dindigul.
http://www.judis.nic.in 5/6 S.A.(MD)No.328 of 2015 N.SESHASAYEE, J.
ta/tsg-2 S.A.(MD)No.328 of 2015 21.09.2020 http://www.judis.nic.in 6/6