Madras High Court
Viswanathan vs Packiam (Died) on 19 December, 2024
Author: V.Sivagnanam
Bench: V.Sivagnanam
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on 26.11.2024
Pronounced on 19.12.2024
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM
S.A.No.1876 of 2003
Viswanathan
... Appellant
-vs-
1.Packiam (died)
2.Loordh (died)
(Memo dated 09.07.2021 in USR No.14630 is recorded as
R2 died, as ordered, no steps need to be taken vide
Order dated 09.07.2021 made in CMP(MD)Nos.2325, 2326 &
2328/2021)
3.Cicily
4.M.Joseph Virgin
5.M.Joseph Martin
6.M.Joseph Mellas
7.M.Edwin
8.M.Vinodhu
9.M.Shiba
10.M.Sheena
11.Maira Pushpam
12.Sundaresan
13.Selvi
14.Mary
15.Athithu
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/24
(RR13 to 15 are brought on record as LRs of the
Deceased 1st respondent vide Court order dated
09.07.2021 made in CMP(MD)Nos.2325, 2326 & 2328/2021)
..Respondent
PRAYER: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 Code of Civil
Procedure, against the Judgment and Decree made in A.S.No.35 of 1997
dated 13.02.2003 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Kzhithurai
reversing the Judgment and Decree made in O.S.No.113 of 1984 dated
19.12.1996 on the file of the II Additional District Munsif, Kuzhithurai.
For Appellant ... Mr.S.Ramesh for
M/s.V.Srimathi
For Respondent ... Ms.J.Ananthavalli
For R3 to R10, R13 to R15
Mr.K.Muthu for R11
JUDGMENT
The Second Appeal has been filed against the Judgment and Decree passed in A.S.No.35 of 1997 dated 13.02.2003 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Kuzhithurai reversing the Judgment and Decree passed in O.S.No.113 of 1984 dated 19.12.1996 on the file of the II Additional District Munsif, Kuzhithurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/24
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking in the Trial Court.
3. The appellant herein is the legal heir of the deceased plaintiff in O.S.No.113 of 1984 on the file of the II Additional District Munsif Court, Kuzhithurai and the third respondent in A.S.No.35 of 1997 on the file of the Sub-Court, Kuzhithurai. The respondents are the defendants in the suit.
4. The plaintiff Lakshmi filed the suit with the following prayer:-
A) Plaintiff be allowed to redeem and recover plaint ‘B’ schedule property from defendants after extinguishing the mortgage right of defendants over the same.
B) Plaintiff be allowed to redeem and recover plaint “C” schedule property from defendants on extinguishing the mortgage right of defendants over the same.
C) Plaintiff be allowed to recover the costs of the suit from the defendants.
D) Such other reliefs which the Court deems fit and just to grant in the nature and circumstances of this suit.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/24
5. The case of the plaintiff is that the plaint ‘A’ schedule property belonged to Madamma Kochappi of Puthuval Puthen Veedu having also Valiavillagam Purayidom of Vallavila of Kollemoode village. The plaint ‘B’ and ‘C’ schedule properties are portions of plaint ‘A’ schedule property. While Madamma Kochappi was in possession of plaint ‘A’ schedule property she executed 2 Otti deeds with respect to ‘B’ and ‘C’ schedule properties. The mortgagees got possession of the mortgaged properties and they were in possession. By successive assignments the plaint mortgages rights over plaint ‘B’ and ‘C’ schedule properties devolved on the first defendant. At present, the first defendant is in possession of the ‘B’ and ‘C’ schedule properties in the capacity as mortgages. The 2nd defendant has been impleaded since he has obtained some interest under first defendant. Madamma Kochappi was a Hindu and she died as a Hindu in the year 1961. Esakkimadan of Erayummanthoppu Purayidom was the husband of Madamma Kochappi. Madamma Kochappi though married, died without issues. Hence, all her properties devolved on her husband’s heirs under the provisions of Hindu Succession Act. Easkkimadan, the husband of Madamma Kochappi had a brother, by name, Kunchainaperumal alias Karuppan. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/24 Kunchainaperumal alias Karuppan died leaving 2 daughters. The daughters are Kamakshi and Lakshmi. Thus, the entire plaint ‘A’ schedule property devolved on Kamakshi and Lakshmi being the children of the brother of Esakkimadan, the deceased husband of Madamma Kochapi. Thus, on the death of Madamma Kochappi, Kamakshi and Lakshmi got possession of plaint ‘A’ schedule property except plaint ‘B’ and ‘C’ schedule properties. While so, Kamakshi and Lakshmi sold plaint ‘A’ schedule property to plaintiff with a direction to redeem ‘B’ and ‘C’ schedule properties on 15.09.1985. Since there was some clerical mistake crept in the sale deed, a correction document was executed by Kamakshi and Lakshmi on 10.10.1983. Thus, the plaintiff got absolute title to plaint ‘A’ schedule property. The plaintiff also got possession of plaint ‘A’ schedule property except plaint ‘B’ and ‘C’ schedule properties. Since the plaintiff has purchased the equity of redemption with respect to the plaint ‘B’ and ‘C’ schedule properties, the plaintiff is entitled to redeem and recover the plaint ‘B’ and ‘C’ schedule properties from the defendants. Madamma Kochappi was an agriculturist and the plaintiff is also an agriculturist. Hence, the plaintiff is entitled to get the benefits of debt laws of the Tamil Nadu. Since the mortgagee is in possession of the mortgaged property for more than 10 years, the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/24 entire mortgage money has been wiped out. Hence, the plaintiff can redeem plaint ‘B’ and ‘C’ schedule properties without deposit of mortgage money.
6. The defendants filed the written statement and contested the suit. The contention of the defendants is that the plaint ‘A’ schedule property belonged to Madamma Kochappi is admitted. The averments in para 2 to 5 of the plaint are not disputed. The first defendant is in possession of the plaint ‘B’ and ‘C’ schedule properties in the capacity as mortgagee is denied. The first defendant is in possession of 34 cents of the plaint ‘A’ schedule property as full owner. On 04.02.1972, the first defendant purchased 22 cents and on 28.03.1974, the defendants 1 and 2 jointly purchased 12 cents of plaint ‘A’ schedule property from the respective owners and thereafter, the possession of the defendant 1 and 2 of these 34 cents as owner and not as mortgages. Madamma Kochappi died issueless, which is admitted. Her husband was Esakkimadan. He died about the year of 1103 M.E and that was prior to the death of Madamma Kochappi and hence, Madamma Kochappi died as a widow. The husband of Madamma Kochappi had no brother by name, Kunchinaperumal or Karuppan. Kamakshi and Lakshmi who executed https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6/24 the sale deed to the plaintiff are not the daughters of Madamma Kochappi’s husband’s brother. There was no such brother. The said vendors are not the personal heirs of Madamma Kochappi. They had no right of succession and they had no right over the plaint ‘A’ schedule property and had no right to execute the sale deed dated 15.09.1983.
7. Madamma Kochappi was a member of a community called ‘Nula’ or ‘Nulaya’. This community is also known as ‘Araya’ community. They are Hindu by religion but they are followers of Marumakathayam Law. All the followers of Marumakathayam law are Hindus by religion but their personal law is not Hindu law, but Marumakkathayam law. The Nulaya community has its own customary Marumakkathayam law and their law in several respects is similar to that of the Ezhavas community of Travancore. Like the Exhavas, the Nulayas also described themselves as “kf;fSk; kUkf;fSk; tHp”. The only change modified by custom is that in the case of a male member, if he died leaving self acquired property and also wife and children, then one half of such self acquired property devolved on his wife and children and only one half devolved on the members of his tarwad by survivorship. As in the case of all marumakathayees his undivided interest in tarwad https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 7/24 property devolved by survivorship on the surviving members of the tarwad. Thus, the Nulaya community is a marumakathayam community and the courts in Travancore recognised them as followers of Marumakathayam law.
8. The succession to the properties of Madamma Kochappi is governed by Section 17 of the Hindu Succession Act and not by Section
15. In the first place, her husband Esakkimadan predeceased her. Secondly, Esakkimadan was the only surviving member in his tarward at the time of his death. Thirdly, he left no immovable property as his assets or estate. Whatever, moveable he had and whatever properties he had devolved on his widow Madamma Kochappi. Even if it is assumed that only member of the tarward of Esakkimadan was alive at the time when Madamma Kochappi died, he did not succeed to Madamma Kochappi because he was not the heir at law under the Hindu Succession Act.
9. Madamma Kochappi had three sisters and two brothers. The sisters are Perumal, Lakshmi and Kaliyamma and the brothers are Pandaraam and Velayudhan. The letter was usually called as Velu. Each https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 8/24 became entitled to 1/5th share in plaint ‘A’ schedule property. These five persons and the heirs of such of them as are dead have been in possession of so much of ‘A’ schedule property which remains after excluding the ‘B’ and ‘C’ schedule portions. On 15.02.1967 Kaliyamma and Perumal’s daughter’s executed a mortgage for 30 coconut trees and 50 cents of land for Rs.2500/- in favour of defendants 1 and 2. The defendants 1 and 2 are in possession of the shares of the above mortgagers as per that mortgage deed. The defendants 1 and 2 got full title to 34 cents in the suit property. The 2nd defendant is now dead. The defendants 3 to 5 are his heirs. Thus, the defendants 1 and 3 to 5 are in possession of 34 cents of the plaint ‘A’ schedule property as full owners. The plaintiff has no right in the plaint ‘A’or ‘B’ schedule property and the plaintiff is not competent to claim possession of the suit property. The plaintiff has not cause of action for this suit and the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief in this suit.
10. On the basis of the above said pleas set out by the respective parties, the following issues were framed by the Trial Court for consideration:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 9/24
1. Whether the sale deed dated 15.09.1983 in the name of the plaintiff was executed by competent persons?
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the mortgage on the suit property?
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit mortgage?
4. Is Madamma Kochappi a follower of Hindu Law or Marumakkalthayam law?
5. Whether the defendants are entitled to the suit property by reason of adverse possession?
6. Remedy and costs?
11. Before the Trial Court, on the side of the plaintiff, the plaintiff herself examined as P.W.1 and examined one Natesan as P.W.3 and marked 11 documents as Ex.A1 to Ex.A11. On the side of the defendants, the first defendant has been examined as D.W.1 and 7 documents have been marked as Ex.B1 to Ex.B7. Besides, an Advocate Commissioner’s Report has been marked as Ex.C1. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 10/24
12. On consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the respective parties and the submission made, the Trial Court decreed the suit as prayed for with costs. Aggrieved over the same, the defendants 1, 3, 4 & 5 had preferred an appeal in A.S.No.35 of 1997 before the Sub Court, Kuzhithurai. Pending appeal before the Sub- Court, Kuzhithurai, the plaintiff Lakshmi died and hence, her legal heirs were impleaded. The First Appellate Court, upon consideration of evidence on record, allowed the appeal by setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. Now, challenging the same, the present second appeal has been filed by the one of the legal heirs of the original plaintiff, by name, Viswanathan.
13. While admitting the second appeal, this Court has formulated the following substantial questions of law:-
1. Whether the lower appellate Court is right in admitting the documents contrary to the provisions of Order 41 Rule 27, 28 of C.P.C?
2. Whether the lower appellate Court is right in applying Marumakathayam law while the party is governed by Hindu Succession Act and whether production of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 11/24 Travancore State Manual dispense with the proof of establishing the succession in respect of the community to which Madamma Kochappi belongs and should not the Court insisted upon the defendants prove by examining an expert on the subject?
14. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the judgment and decree of the First appellate Court is contrary to law and unjust and against the principles of law and facts. The First Appellate Court failed to apply the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act on the demise of Madamma Kochappi. The application of the Hindu Succession Act Section 17 by Marumakathayam rule of succession is erroneous. The First Appellate Court failed to appreciate the fact that the father and mother of Madamma Kochappi died long back and as per the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, unless it is established that the properties were purchased from and out of the income of the parties, the rule of succession would enable the relatives of the husband to succeed the estate of the deceased. The learned counsel further contended that the First Appellate Court failed to appreciate the fact that Madamma Kochappi had mortgaged the property under Exs.A1 and A2 and https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 12/24 subsequently, the property had been statutorily redeemed and sold to the appellant herein under Exs.A3 and A4 and patta had also been transferred in his name. The First Appellate Court ignored the aforesaid documents and misapplied the provisions of the Marumakathayam rule of succession. The First Appellate Court had committed serious error in receiving the document under Exs.B8 to B.13 and failed to apply the principles stated under Order 41 Rule 28 C.P.C and no opportunity was given to the appellant to rebut the evidence and merely allowed the application, which is contrary to law. The judgments are not admissible in evidence since it is not the judgment between inter-parties. The learned counsel further reiterated the grounds raised in the grounds of appeal and thus, pleaded to allow the second appeal and set aside the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court and restore the Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court. In support of his arguments, the learned counsel has relied upon the following Judgments:-
(i) RLW 1972 [Shri Ram vs. Prabhu Dayal]
(ii) 1942 SCC Online Mad 319 [Guduri Anjayya and another
vs. Devabhaktuni Gundarayudu and others]
(iii) AIR 1956 P & H 129 [Gita Ram Kalsi vs. S.Prithvi Singh and others]
(iv) 1998 SCC Online Mad 23 [Sivasubramanian and another vs. Govindarajan and another]
(v) CRP No.2954 of 2021 dated 28.04.2023 [D.Harish and another vs. Champalatha and another] https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 13/24
15. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents supported the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court. Further, she contended that a second appeal preferred by the parties before this Court in S.A.No.1308 of 1990 arises from O.S.No.267 of 1974 on the file of the Principal District Court, Kuzhithurai had been considered with regard to the succession of property owned by Madamma Kochappi pertaining to the same plaint schedule properties, in which, this Court concluded that Section 17 of the Hindu Succession Act 1956 is applicable to the property of Madamma Kochappi and uphold the sale effected by the sister and brother as legal heirs of Madamma Kochappi. The sale deeds were effected during the years 1974, 1975 and 1976. Under these circumstances, by obtaining a sale in the year 1983 from one Kamakshi and Lakshmi is not valid one and the vendor of the plaintiff had no title over the property. Therefore, the claim of the plaintiff is rightly rejected by the First Appellate Court and no merit in the second appeal and thus, pleaded to dismiss the second appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 14/24
16. I have considered the matter in the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides and perused the materials available on records carefully.
17. On perusal of the records and materials, it is revealed that the plaint schedule property originally belonged to one Madamma Kochappi. She died issueless after passing of the Hindu Succession Act in the year 1961. Further, Madamma Kochappi’s husband predeceased her. Madamma Kochappi died intestate. These facts are not disputed by both the parties.
18. According to the plaintiff, Madamma Kochappi being a Hindu, the Hindu Succession Act has to be applied and after her death, her husband’s legal heirs i.e., her husband’s brother Kunchanaiperumal alias Karuppan is entitled to succeed the property of the said Madamma Kochappi and after his death, his legal heirs are his two daughters, namely, Kamakshi and Lakshmi and they are entitled to the property of the said Madamma Kochappi. The plaint ‘A’ schedule properties thus devolved upon Kamakshi and Lakshmi being the children of brother of Esakkimadan, the deceased husband of Madamma Kochappi. From https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 15/24 Kamkshi and Lakshmi, the plaintiff purchased the plaint ‘A’ schedule properties by way of sale deed dated 15.09.1983, which is evidenced by Ex.A3 sale deed, dated 15.09.1983.
19. According to the defendants, Madamma Kochappi belongs to ‘Nulaya’ community, for them, the principles of Marummakkalthayam has to be applied. Therefore, Section 17 of the Hindu Succession Act would not be applicable. In support of her contention, the learned counsel relied on the Judgment of this Court in S.A.No.1308 of 1990 dated 19.11.2001, which is evidenced before the First Appellate Court as Ex.B.13.
20. A perusal of Ex.B13, it is noticed that the succession to Madamma Kochappi’s property was raised. This Court in paragraphs 19 and 20 of the Judgment observed as follows:-
“19........The plaintiffs in O.S.No.447/74 sought for partition with the above averments. Concededly, the immovable properties described in the schedule in O.S.No.447/74 belonged to Madamma Kochappi, a Hindu, who died issueless after the passing of the Hindu Succession Act of 1956. It is also not in dispute that her https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 16/24 husband predeceased her. Since Kochappi died intestate, by operation of law, namely, the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 her properties devolved on her sisters and brothers. The case of the plaintiff in O.S.No. 447/74 was that Madamma Kochappi had three sisters and two brothers and each entitled to 1/5th share, but the defendants contended that she had only two sisters, namely, the first defendant and another. After discussing the available evidence, the trial court has found that the first defendant, Perumal and Lakshmi were the sisters and two brothers, namely, Pandaram and Velu were the heirs of Madamma Kochappi and each was entitled to 1/5th share in the suit property. On appeal, the lower appellate Court has also affirmed the findings recorded by the trial court. At this stage, it has got to be pointed out that this finding of the trial court, which was confirmed by the lower appellate court is not challenged by the appellant herein and thus the said finding has become, final. Hence, Kaliamma, the first plaintiff in O.S.No.267/74 and who is also the first defendant in O.S.No.447/74 was entitled to only 1/5th share in the properties of the deceased Madamma Kochappi. It is not in dispute that Madamma Kochappi had 1 acre, in S.No. 1277/3 and 52 cents in S.No.1278/1, thus totalling to 1 acre 52 cents in which the said Kaliamma was entitled to 30.4 cents towards her 1/5th share. It is evident from https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 17/24 Ex.B.1 sale deed that the said Kaliamma has executed a sale deed on 26.6.1975 in respect of 25 cents. Thus what was available in the hands of the first defendant Kaliamma after execution of Ex.B.1 was only 54 cents.
As rightly pointed out by the lower appellate court, though the first defendant Kaliamma had executed 51.167 cents to the 23rd defendant/appellant herein, she was entitled to only 5.4 cents.
20. The next contention that was put forth by the appellant's side was that the appellant was entitled for redemption of the Othi made under Ex.A.5. The said Othi under Ex.A.5 was executed by Kaliamma, Narayani to the plaintiffs 1 and 2 in respect of 50 cents, which formed part of the total extent of 1 acre 52 cents which is shown in the schedule in O.S.No.447/74. It is pertinent to point out that the first defendant Kaliamma was entitled to only 30.4 cents. It is contended by the contesting respondents that the redemption in respect of 50 cents which was shown as subject matter of the Othi under Ex.A.5 cannot be ordered in view of the fact that the first defendant Kaliamma was entitled to only 30.4 cents. Relying on the decision of this court reported in AIR 1962 MADRAS 229 (APPU GOUNDER VS. MUNUSWAMI KONE AND OTHERS), it is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the mortgagees were estopped from contending against the title of the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 18/24 mortgagors. The mortgage deed under Ex.A.5 is not disputed. The dispute between the parties was in respect of the share in the property and as to the right of the plaintiff in O.S.No.267 of 1974 for redemption of the mortgage under Ex.A.5. The 15th defendant in O.S.No. 447 of 1974 has claimed title for 25 cents under Ex.B.1 dated 26.6.1975. Likewise, the appellant herein, who was the 23rd defendant claimed title under Ex.B.6. dated 7.2.1976 which was subsequent to the sale deed executed by Kaliamma under Ex.B.1, dated 26.6.1975. There is a clear recital under Ex.B.6 executed by the first defendant in favour of the 23rd defendant directing the vendee to redeem the said mortgage. It is true that the mortgagee is estopped from questioning the title of the mortgagor. But in the instant case, even at the time of executing the mortgage, the first defendant Kaliamma was entitled to only 1/5th share, i.e. 30.4 cents in the total property. As stated above, the first defendant, Kaliamma has executed a sale deed under Ex.B.1, dated 26.6.1975 in respect of 25 cents out of 30.4 cents which she was entitled to. Hence, though Ex.B.6 was executed by Kaliamma in favour of the 23rd defendant/appellant herein in respect of a larger extent, she could claim only 5.4.cents, which were available in the hands of Kaliamma on the date of Ex.B.6. Under the circumstances, the lower appellate court was perfectly correct that the third https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 19/24 plaintiff/appellant in O.S.No.267 of 1974 was entitled to exercise of right of redemption only to the extent of 5.4 cents in respect of which she could claim title under Ex. B.6.”
21. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that while taking additional evidence, the First Appellate Court has not followed the mandatory requirements of Order 41 Rule 22 C.P.C, is not effectively supported the appellant’s case. Since this Court has decided the mode of succession of the original owner of the suit property i.e., Madamma Kochappi, again it cannot be agitated. Apart from this, with regard to the property of Madamma Kochapppi, after her death in the year 1961, various sales and mortgages effected by the legal heirs of the sisters of Madamma Kochapppi from 1974 to 1976. Under these circumstances, the plaintiff’s vendor i.e., Kamakshi and Lakshmi executing a sale deed Ex.A3 on 15.09.1983 is not a valid one for want of title over the property and there is no material on record to show that after the death of Madamma Kochapppi in the year 1961, her husband’s brother, namely, Kunchanaiperumal alias Karuppan succeeded the property of Madamma Kochapppi and after his death, his daughters, namely, Kamakshi and Lakshmi (vendors of the plaintiff) obtained the property.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 20/24
22. According to the plaintiff, she got a title over the property as per sale deed Ex.A3 dated 15.09.1993.
23. A perusal of the records reveals the fact that the plaintiff claims title over the suit property in view of the sale deed Ex.A3 dated 15.09.1983 executed by Kamakshi and Lakshmi. Further, it is seen that after the death of Madamma Kochapppi by following Section 17 of the Hindu Succession Act, her sister and brothers partitioned the property and they are the legal heirs, subjected the properties for mortgage and sale from the year 1974, which is evidenced from O.S.No.267 of 1974 and A.S.No.285 of 1983 and S.A.No.1308 of 1990. Further, Madamma Kochappi belongs to Nulaya’ community, for that community, Marumakkalthayam principle is applied, which is also confirmed by this Court in S.A.No.1308 of 1990. Section 17 of the Hindu Succession Act reads as follows:-
“17. Special provisions respecting persons governed by marumakkattayam and atiyasantana laws.―The provisions of sections 8, 10, 15 and 23 shall have effect in relation to persons https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 21/24 who would have been governed by the marumakkattayam law or aliyasantana law if this Act had not been passed as if―
(i) for sub-clauses (c) and (d) of section 8, the following had been substituted, namely:― “(c) thirdly, if there is no heir of any of the two classes, then upon his relatives, whether agnates or cognates.”;
(ii) for clauses (a) to (e) of sub-section (1) of section 15, the following had been substituted, namely:― “(a) firstly, upon the sons and daughters (including the children of any pre-deceased son or daughter) and the mother;
(b) secondly, upon the father and the husband;
(c) thirdly, upon the heirs of the mother;
(d) fourthly, upon the heirs of the father; and
(e) lastly, upon the heirs of the husband.”;
(iii) clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section 15 had been omitted;
(iv) section 23 had been omitted.”
24. Under these circumstances, I find that the First Appellate Court is right in admitting the documents Exs.B11 to 13 and also the First Appellate Court is right in applying the Marumakkalthayam law https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 22/24 while the parties are governed by the Hindu Succession Act and applied Section 17 of the Hindu Succession Act with regard to the Madamma Kochapppi. There is no ground to interfere with the findings of the First Appellate Court. I find no merit in the second appeal. Hence, the second appeal is liable to be dismissed.
25. In the result, the Second Appeal fails and the same is dismissed. No costs.
19.12.2024 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet: Yes skn To:
1.The Subordinate Judge, Kuzhithurai.
2.The the II Additional District Munsif, Kuzhithurai.
3.The Record Keeper, V.R. Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 23/24 V.SIVAGNANAM, J.
skn Judgment made in S.A.No.1876 of 2003 19.12.2024 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 24/24