Madras High Court
T. Jothi vs N. Rakkiyannan (Died) on 18 July, 2025
S.A.No.663 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on 02.07.2025
Pronounced on 18 .07 .2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI
S.A. No.663 of 2020
C.M.P.Nos. 13799 & 14067 of 2020
T. Jothi ...Appellant
Vs.
N. Rakkiyannan (died)
1. R. Balusamy
2. R. Chinnasamy ... Respondent
Prayer : Second Appeal filed under Section 100 CPC, 1908 to set aside
the judgment and decree of the learned I Additional Subordinate Judge,
Erode, in A.S. No.84 of 2015 dated 12.11.2019 reversing the judgment
and decree of the learned Principal District Munsif, Erode, in O.S.
No.113 of 2011 dated 25.08.2014.
For Appellant : Mr.C.E.Pratap
For Respondents : Mr.I.C.Vasudevan
Page 1 of 26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 07:05:59 pm )
S.A.No.663 of 2020
JUDGMENT
In this Second Appeal, challenge is made to the judgment and decree dated 12.11.2019 passed in A.S. No.84/2015 on the file of the I Additional Sub-court, Erode, reversing the judgment and decree dated 25.08.2014 passed in O.S. No.113/2011 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Erode.
2. The Second Appeal has been admitted on the following substantial question of law.
“Whether the appellate Court overlooked the fact that the property purchased under Ex.B1 will take the character of ancestral property, since it has been purchased out of the sale proceeds of joint family property, sold by the grandmother of the plaintiff on behalf of the 1st defendant under Ex.A6?”
3. Considering the scope of the issues involved between the parties Page 2 of 26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 07:05:59 pm ) S.A.No.663 of 2020 with regard to the subject matter lying in a narrow compass, it is unnecessary to dwell into the facts of the case in detail.
4. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking in the trial court.
5. Suffice to state that the plaintiff has laid the suit against the defendants for partition in the suit properties. Briefly stated, according to the plaintiff, the plaintiff and the defendants 2 and 3 are sister and brothers. The 1st defendant is their father. The wife of the 1 st defendant, namely, Nagammal, died on 20.05.2005. Item Nos. 1 to 3 of the suit properties are ancestral properties of the 1st defendant. Item 4 and 5 were subsequently purchased by the 1st defendant under the sale deed dated 25.01.1978 out of the income from the ancestral properties. Since the 1st defendant is the kartha of the family, the sale deed was taken in his name. In any event, items 4 and 5 are thrown into common hotch pot and blended with existing properties. Hence, all the suit properties are ancestral in nature.
Page 3 of 26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 07:05:59 pm ) S.A.No.663 of 2020 5.1. The plaintiff and the defendants have been enjoying the properties without any partition and since it has become impossible for the plaintiff to be in joint possession of properties, she demanded for partition. However, the defendants gave evasive reply. On 06.02.2011, the plaintiff made a final demand, but the defendants refused the same stating that the revenue records for the portion of suit properties are in their name. Mutation of revenue records are not in accordance with law and the same is invalid. The further contention of the plaintiff is that as per Hindu Succession Amendment Act 39, 2005, the plaintiff and the defendants are entitled for ¼ share each in the suit properties. Hence the plaintiff was constrained to file the above suit for partition.
5.2. The claim of the plaintiff was resisted by the defendants stating that on 19.06.1930, the grand mother of the 1st defendant, namely, Karuppammal and the mother of 1st defendant, namely junior Karuppal jointly purchased an extent of 1.78 acres in S.F. No.1059/C. The said property has been mentioned as Item Nos. 1 to 3 in the suit. Therefore, Page 4 of 26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 07:05:59 pm ) S.A.No.663 of 2020 item Nos.1 to 3 are self acquired properties of Karuppal and junior Karuppal. The father of the 1st defendant, namely, Nachi Navithan, predeceased his mother senior Karuppal, when the 1st defendant was 3 years old. The said senior Karuppal died in the year 1950 leaving behind the first defendant and his mother junior Karuppal as her legal heirs. Subsequently, the 1st defendant's mother junior Karuppal died in the year 1954 leaving the 1st defendant as her only legal heir. Thereafter, the 1st defendant constructed a tiled house in the first item and a terraced house in the 2nd item out of his own earnings. The 1st defendant is therefore entitled for item No.1 to 3 as separate property and has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. All the revenue records are in the name of the first defendant. Subsequently, the 1st defendant purchased item Nos.4 and 5 of the properties under the sale deed dated 25.01.1978 out of his own earnings. Hence, all the suit properties are self acquired properties of the 1st defendant and as such he is entitled to deal with the same. It is incorrect to state that item Nos.1 to 3 of the suit properties are ancestral properties and Item Nos. 4 and 5 are thrown into common hotch pot. There was no joint family property and therefore, there is no Page 5 of 26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 07:05:59 pm ) S.A.No.663 of 2020 question of common hotch pot and blending. It is further contended that it is incorrect to say that the plaintiff and the defendants are in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit properties and that the plaintiff demanded for a partition. The plaintiff, being the only daughter of the 1st defendant, her marriage was performed in a grand manner and by giving 'seer' as per custom of the community. The 1st defendant executed a settlement deed in favour of the defendants 2 and 3 on 09.11.2010. Hence, the defendant 2 and 3 are in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. The plaintiff, suppressing the above material facts filed the present vexatious suit, which is liable to be dismissed.
5.3. In the reply statement filed by the plaintiff, it is submitted that it is incorrect to say that the suit properties are self acquired properties of the 1st defendant and that it is also false to state that the 1 st defendant performed the marriage of the plaintiff in a grand manner by providing 'seers'. Since the 1st defendant himself is having ¼ share in the suit properties, he is not entitled to execute a settlement deed in favour of the defendant 2 and 3 in respect of the suit properties. The said settlement Page 6 of 26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 07:05:59 pm ) S.A.No.663 of 2020 deed dated 09.11.2010 is a fabricated document for the reason that the 1st defendant is not capable of understanding things going around him due to his old age. Hence, the settlement deed is not binding upon the plaintiff.
5.4 The trial court upon considering the above pleadings framed the following issues:
1) "Whether the plaintiff is entitled to 1/4th share in the suit properties and for the relief of partition and separate possession as prayed for?
2) Whether the items 1 to 3 of suit properties are ancestral properties in the hands of 1st defendant as contended by the plaintiff'?
3) Whether the suit properties are in joint possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff and the defendants?
4) To what relief?
5) Whether the 4th and 5th items of suit properties are purchased by the 1st defendant out of income from the ancestral properties?
6) Whether the settlement deed dated 09.11.2010 allegedly executed Page 7 of 26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 07:05:59 pm ) S.A.No.663 of 2020 by the 1st defendant in favour of the 2nd and 3rd defendants is valid or not?"
5.5. Before the trial court, the plaintiff examined herself as P.W.1 and marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A6. The 2nd defendant examined himself as D.W.1 and two other witnesses as D.W.2 and D.W.3 and marked Ex.B1 to B6.
5.6. The trial court, upon considering the oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced by the respective counsel for the parties, decreed the suit as follows:
1. The share of the parties in the suit properties are hereby declared as follows:
a) The share of the plaintiff' - 2/8
b) The share of the 2nd defendant - 3/8
c) The share of the 3rd defendant - 3/8
2. The defendants are directed to divide the suit properties by metes and bounds in accordance with good and bad soil Page 8 of 26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 07:05:59 pm ) S.A.No.663 of 2020 into 8 equal shares and allot the plaintiff two of such shares
3. Failing which, the plaintiff is at liberty to apply for division of properties through Court by appointing a commissioner and for passing a final decree of partition.
4. No costs.
5.7. Aggrieved by this, the defendants preferred an appeal before the I Additional Subordinate Court, Erode, in A.S. No. 84/2015 praying to set aside the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No.113/2011 by the learned District Munsif, Erode.
5.8. By a judgment and decree dated 12.11.2019, the learned I Additional Sub Judge, Erode, allowed the appeal by setting aside the decree and judgment passed in O.S. No.113/2011 by the learned District Munsif, Erode, dated 25.08.2014 and dismissed the suit.
6. Aggrieved over the same, the plaintiff is before this Court with the present Second Appeal.
Page 9 of 26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 07:05:59 pm ) S.A.No.663 of 2020
7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/plaintiff submits that the First Appellate appellate Court has committed an error of law to the facts and circumstances of the case by not placing any reliance on Ex.A6 sale deed dated 19.06.1930 and the specific recitals contained there under in its entirety as acceptable evidence to prove the properties in Item Nos.1 to 3 as ancestral in nature, erroneously held that the trial Court committed blatant error.
7.1. His further contention is that the specific recital contained in Ex.A6 is a verbatim recital found in Ex.B1 which would testify the factum of Item Nos. 1 to 3 of suit properties are purchased by senior and junior Karuppal entirely out of the sale proceeds received as consideration by selling the property under Ex.A6 and therefore, it must be strictly construed in law as ancestral properties wherein the appellant plaintiff is entitled to ¼ share claimed in the suit. His further contention is that Items Nos. 4 and 5 of the suit properties alleged to have been purchased by the 1st defendant on 25.01.1978 vide Ex.B1 sale deed was out of the income from the ancestral properties and the said documents Page 10 of 26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 07:05:59 pm ) S.A.No.663 of 2020 stand exclusively in the name of the 1st defendant which in the facts is clearly deposed by D.W.1 in cross examination and therefore, the same shall be treated as ancestral properties. It is further submitted that the first appellate court had committed an error by not considering the fact that the character of the suit properties as ancestral by virtue of non application of Section 14(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 to the instant case because of the death of the `senior and junior Karuppal in the year 1950 and 1954 respectively much prior to the commencement of the Act in 1956. The first appellate court further failed to consider Ex.B3 settlement deed dated 09.11.2010 wherein the properties have been described as ancestral properties, which itself is sufficient to establish the fact that the 1st defendant himself treated the suit properties as ancestral properties. Hence the findings rendered by the first appellate court is perverse and prays for interference by this Court.
8.Heard both sides, records perused.
9.The substantial point that requires consideration in the appeal is, Page 11 of 26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 07:05:59 pm ) S.A.No.663 of 2020 whether suit item nos. 1 to 3 that the 1 st defendant got by inheritance are to be regarded as ancestral or self acquired properties in his hands. The initial burden of proof is on plaintiff who asserts the said properties to be ancestral properties. According to the plaintiff, though item nos. 1 to 3 are purchased in the names of two women, they are still ancestral properties since, the said properties were purchased after selling the ancestral property of her grandfather under Ex.A.6. On perusal of Ex.A.6 it is seen that the plaintiff's great grandmother Senior Karuppal and the 1st defendant as minor represented by his mother Junior Karuppal sold an extent of 1.14 acres in old S.F.Nos.1036 and 1037 of Thuyyam Poondurai Village in favour of one Muthu Gounden. As rightly, held by the trial Court, Ex.A.6 sale deed and Ex.B.1 sale deed has some relevance. The relevant paragraph from the judgment of the trial Court in this regard is extracted as hereunder:
'' Firstly, Ex.A6 and Ex.B1 are executed on the same day, namely 19.6.1930; Ex.A6 was registered as Doc. No.1473/1930 in the office of Sub-Registrar, Erode and Page 12 of 26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 07:05:59 pm ) S.A.No.663 of 2020 Ex.B1 was registered as a next document as Doc. No.1474/1930.
2. Secondly, one Muthu Gounden, s/o. Muthu Gounden was the purchaser in Ex. A6 and he was the seller in Ex.B1.
3. Thirdly, Subject matter in Ex.A6 was 1.14 acres in SF. Nos. 1036 and 1057 and the subject matter in Ex.B1 is 1.78 acres in SF. No.1059C. Both these lands are situated in same Thuyyam Poondural Village and it appears that they are situated in the same locality.
4. Fourthly, the sale consideration in Ex.A6 and Ex.B1 are same, namely, Rs.100/-.
5. Fifthly and most importantly, the purpose of the sale in both sale deeds are same. In Ex.A6 it has been recited as follows :-
,jdoapy; fz;l g{kpfis UP/100/00f;F fpiuak; bra;J bfhLj;J ntW g{kp fpiuaj;jpw;F th';Ftjw;fhf buhf;fk; bgw;Wf;bfhz;lJ UP/100/00/ Page 13 of 26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 07:05:59 pm ) S.A.No.663 of 2020 In Ex. B1 also there is similar recital, which as follows:- ,jdoapy; fz;l g{kpia UP/100/00f;F fpiuak; bra;J bfhLj;J ntW g{kp fpiuaj;jpw;F th';Ftjw;fhf buhf;fk;
bgw;Wf;bfhz;lJ UP/100/00/ From the recital in Ex. A6, It reveals that Sr.Karuppal and the minor 1st defendant have sold their property for a sum of Rs.100/- to one Muthusamy and purchased items 1 to 3 of the suit properties on the same day under Ex.B1 from the same Muthusamy and for the same sale consideration. Therefore it can be safely held that the item nos.1 to 3 of suit properties purchased by Senior and Junior Karuppal are entirely out of sale proceeds from selling the property under Ex.A6 and that they did not spend any other money for purchase of the same. Now, it has to be seen whether the property sold under Ex.A.6 is ancestral in nature. The trial Court has come to the conclusion that the property sold under Ex.A.6 is the ancestral property of the 1st defendant. The relevant portion of the judgment is extracted as hereunder:Page 14 of 26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 07:05:59 pm ) S.A.No.663 of 2020
11. The learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the properties sold under Ex.A6 was the ancestral property and therefore, the property purchased under Ex.B1 is also an ancestral property as the same was purchased from the sale proceeds of ancestral property.
For drawing such analogy, It has to be proved that the property sold under Ex.A6 was an ancestral property. To find out the same, except Ex.A6, no other materials or evidence are available. Hence, this court has to decided the same from the recitals and circumstances emanating from Ex.A6. In Ex.A6, there is no mentioning that the properties are ancestral properties or the same was inherited from a male member. The learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that 1st defendant is one of the vendors in Ex.A6 and he was represented by his mother. Therefore, he contended that the property sold under Ex.A6 is the property inherited by the 1st defendant either from his father or from his grand father. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the defendants submitted that 1st defendant was a boy at that time and his name might have been included by way of precaution. He submitted that there is no recital in Ex.A6 that he got the property ancestrally, but there is an assertion that it Page 15 of 26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 07:05:59 pm ) S.A.No.663 of 2020 was their own property. In this regard, the learned counsel for defendants referred to recitals in the description of property in Ex.A6, which is extracted as follows :-
“Ja;ak;g{e;Jiw fpuhkj;jpy; v';fSf;F ghj;jpag;gl;L eh';fs; mDgtpjJ ; tUfpw f/r/1036 be/g[/V/12/8f;F 9/13/0 f/r/1037 be g[/V/2/21f;F 1/13/0 Mf Vf;fh; 14/29f;F 11/10 ,jpy; v';fs; g';fhrhuk; njhl;lk; g[";ir cs;gl bghJtpy; Vf;fh; 1/14 ,e;j g{kpa[k”; / The learned counsel for the defendant submitted that there is a specific recital in Ex.A6 that the property belongs to them, and that they are in enjoyment of the same. He further submitted that there is no recitals that the property has been inherited from any male member and hence, it was the property of a woman.
12. According to the defendants, the mentioning of the name of 1st defendant as one of the vendors in Ex.A6, might be out of precaution. The sentence “v';fSf;F ghj;jpag;gl;L eh';fs; mDgtpj;J tUfpw” denotes that the property sold under Ex.A6 was belonging to Sr. Karuppal Page 16 of 26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 07:05:59 pm ) S.A.No.663 of 2020 and her minor grandson. Hence, this court cannot overlook this aspect and ignore the name of 1st defendant. When the defendants are contending that there is no specific mentioning that the property was ancestral property, equally, there is no specific mentioning that the property was independent or self acquired or Stridhana property of Sr. Karuppal. In the absence of any such specific recitals, this court has to take the sentence in its plain literal meaning. As per these recitals, the property sold under Ex.A6 was indeed the joint property of Sr.Karuppal and her grandson.
13. Regarding Ex.A6, the defendants cross-examined the PW1 and the same is as follows :-
“th/rh/M/6y; fpuak; bra;ag;gl;l brhj;J vd; je;ijf;F g{h;tpf tifapy; ghj;jpag;gl;l brhj;J vd;w thrfk; ,y;iy vd;why; rhpjhd;/ thrhM/6y; fz;Ls;s brhj;J vd; je;ijapd; g{h;tPf brhj;nj my;y vd;why; rhpay;y/ tHf;fpwf; hf me;j brhj;J g{h;tPf brhj;J vd;W jtwhf brhy;Yfpnwd; vd;why; rhpay;y/ vd; je;ijf;Fk; vd; je;ijapd; ghl;of;Fk; jdpgg; l;l Kiwapy; ghj;jpag;gl;l brhj;Jfs; th/rh/M/6y; rk;ke;jg;gl;l brhj;J vd;why; rhpay;y”/ Page 17 of 26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 07:05:59 pm ) S.A.No.663 of 2020 Even the defendants have put a suggestion to the PW1 that the property sold under Ex.A6 was joint properties of Sr. Karuppal and 1" defendant. By putting this suggestion, the defendants have admitted that the 1 defendant has half share in the property sold under Ex.A6. But such suggestion was put forth on the pretext that it was the individual property of 1 defendant and Sr.Karuppal. Now, let us look into probable scenarios under what circumstances a grandmother and her grandson could jointly own properties.
14. Even under old Hindu, women were entitled to hold properties of their own by way of Stridhana. Normally, women can acquire property by way of gift from her parents or other relatives or gift from her husband. If the property sold under Ex. A6 was belonging to senior Karuppal alone, it can be assumed that she got the same by way of gift or Inheritance from her parents or purchased by her own means. The presence of 1st defendant as co-owner of the property has ruled any possibility that the property sold under Ex.A6 being her stridhana property. Because, there is no chance of a Page 18 of 26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 07:05:59 pm ) S.A.No.663 of 2020 grandson being a co-owner in the Stridhana property of a woman.
15. The 1st defendant's mother Junior Karuppal enters in the family as a daughter-in-law and it seems that she did not bring any property of her own into the family. That was why, she was not shown as a vendor, but shown only as a guardian of the minor. The 1st defendant was a minor and most probably he might be aged 5 years at the time of Ex.A6 and Ex.B1. Therefore, unless he inherited the property, there is no chance of him purchasing or owning any property by himself. Most probably, the 1st defendant acquired right in the property by way of inheritance from his grandfather or from his father. If the 1st defendant acquires a property by way Inheritance from his father or grandfather it will be his ancestral property. If half of the property is ancestral property of a minor boy, there is more chance of remaining half also being ancestral.
16. To clarify the nature of property, after marking Ex.
A6, the plaintiff recalled the DW1 and cross-examined him. The relevant portion of cross-examination of DW1 is as follows :-
Page 19 of 26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 07:05:59 pm ) S.A.No.663 of 2020 “vd; je;ijf;F fhh;oadhf mthpd; jha; fUg;ghs; kw;Wk; mth; rhh;gpy; nrh;j;J xU Kj;Jft[zl; h; kfd; Kj;Jft[zl; Uf;F UP/100/- xU brhj;ij fpuak; bra;Js;shh; vd;why; rhpjhd;/ mjpy; g[y vz;.1036. 1037 y; mike;Js;s bghJtpy; 14.20 Vf;fhpy; 1.14 Vf;fh; fpuak; bra;ag;gl;Ls;sjhy; mJ ghfk;gphpff; g;glhj g{h;tPf brhj;J vd;why; rhpay;y”/ As pointed out by the plaintiff, the property sold under Ex.A6 was only an undivided share measuring 1.14 acres out of total extent of 14.29 acres. It would show that the family had an undivided interest in a large extent of property. There are certain pertinent questions arising in this aspect. The only person who could answer those question is none other that the 1st defendant. Though he was a minor at that time, he might have acquired personal knowledge about the nature of property as he grew up. As on today, the 1st defendant is aged around 90 years. The plaintiff says that the 1st defendant is not in a fit state of mind and she has made such contention in order to dispute the validity of a settlement deed executed by him in favour of 2nd and 3rd defendants. On the other Page 20 of 26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 07:05:59 pm ) S.A.No.663 of 2020 hand, the 2nd and 3rd defendants say that 1st defendant is healthy, ambulatory, but he could not move out of his house. If the 1st defendant was examined as a witness, it would have been helpful for this court to decide this complex issue.
17. From the fact that the mother of the 1st n defendant did not execute as an owner of the property, but she was included only as a guardian of the minor, it would show that the property was inherited by the 1st defendant from his paternal side. If the property sold under Ex.A6 was the Stridhana property of Sr. Karuppal, there is no necessity for her to make her grandson as one of the executants. All these factors would show that the property sold under Ex.A6 was not the Stridhana property brought by senior or junior Karuppal from their parents or from their individual purchases. The only possibility is that senior Karuppal and her grandson the 1st defendant should have jointly inherited the property from a male member. Therefore, it is hereby held that the property sold under Ex.A6 was ancestral property in the hands of the 1 defendant when he was minor and it was the property, Inherited by Sr. Karuppal from her husband.'' Page 21 of 26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 07:05:59 pm ) S.A.No.663 of 2020
10.Therefore, the trial Court has rightly held that the property sold under Ex.A.6 was an ancestral property and therefore, the property purchased under Ex.B.1 is also an ancestral property as the same was purchased from the sale proceeds of ancestral property. Normally, if a property is purchased out of sale consideration from an ancestral property, the same would be regarded as an ancestral property. The 1st appellate Court failed to consider Ex.A.6 in a right perspective, and simply ignored Ex.A.6 by stating that the plaintiff failed to plead about A.6 in the plaint. The judgment of the trial Court was right in ruling out the possibility of the property being sold under Ex.A.6 as Stridhana property on the pretext that no grandson will be a co-owner in the stridhana property of a women. Moreover, the defendants themselves admitted that their father namely the 1st defendant had half share in the property sold under Ex.A.6. The first appellate Court failed to consider the above facts and erroneously held that the suit properties in item nos. 1 to 3 are the separate properties of the 1 st defendant. The trial Court has rightly held that even though the properties are purchased in the name of Page 22 of 26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 07:05:59 pm ) S.A.No.663 of 2020 two women and that they have died prior to the advent of the Hindu Succession Act 1956, and as soon as sons were born to the 1st defendant, the property retains its character as ancestral one. Furthermore, the trial Court was right in holding that since the defendants failed to establish the source of purchase money spent towards purchasing item nos. 4 and 5 and that the 1st defendant failed to enter the witness box to explain about his independent income for purchasing the above properties, the 4th and 5th items of suit properties are also ancestral properties purchased from the income derived from the ancestral properties.
11.The First Appellate Court was wrong in interfering the well- reasoned judgment of the trial Court and erred in holding that acceptance of Ex.A.6 as evidence by the trial Court as blatant error without due regard to the fact that the trial Court has arrived at a conclusion while determining the nature of item nos. 1 to 3 are ancestral by perusing the recitals in Ex.A.6 which is similar to the recitals in Ex.B.1 and the same would establish the fact that Ex.B.1 properties were purchased entirely out of the sale proceeds from selling the property under Ex.A.6. Page 23 of 26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 07:05:59 pm ) S.A.No.663 of 2020 Moreover, when a property is substituted for another, the property that is acquired part-takes of the nature of the estate for which it has been substituted [Ref: Tod Singh & Ors vs. Begam Bai reported in AIR 1960 MP 64]. Furthermore, the first appellate Court failed to consider that once the existence of ancestral properties are proved, the burden shifts on the defendants to establish that the properties in item nos. 4 and 5 are the self acquisitions of the 1st defendant. Since the defendants failed to prove the independent income of the 1st defendant, the 4th and 5th items of the suit properties should also be considered as ancestral properties purchased from the income derived from the ancestral properties.
12.Hence, the first appellate Court was wrong in dismissing the suit by interfering with the findings of the trial Court without appreciating the factual and legal aspects as projected by the appellant/plaintiff. The reasons given by the first appellate Court are found to be perverse, not sound and proper to the facts and circumstances of the case.
Page 24 of 26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 07:05:59 pm ) S.A.No.663 of 2020
13.In this result, the second appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree of the learned I Additional Subordinate Judge, Erode, in A.S. No.84 of 2015 dated 12.11.2019 is set aside and the learned Principal District Munsif, Erode, in O.S. No.113 of 2011 dated 25.08.2014 is confirmed. In these circumstances, the parties will bare their own costs in this appeal. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
18.07.2025 Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Speaking/Non-Speaking order bga/vsn To
1. The Ist Additional Subordinate Judge, Erode.
2. The Principal District Munsif, Erode,
3. The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court, Madras. Page 25 of 26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 07:05:59 pm ) S.A.No.663 of 2020 K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI,J bga/vsn S.A.No.663 of 2020 & C.M.P.Nos. 13799 & 14067 of 2020 18.07.2025 Page 26 of 26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 07:05:59 pm )