Madras High Court
R.Elumalai vs R.Mangathammal (Died) on 3 July, 2025
Author: Sathi Kumar Sukumara Kurup
Bench: Sathi Kumar Sukumara Kurup
S.A.No.547 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 03.07.2025
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP
Second Appeal. No.547 of 2013
and
M.P.No.1 of 2013
R.Elumalai ... Appellant
Versus
1. R.Mangathammal (died)
2. K.Alamelu (died)
3. M.Jayalakshmi
4. N.Poongavanam
5. Kasi
6. Jaishankar
7. Vijayakumar ... Respondents
(R-1 & R-2 died, RR5 to 7 brought on record as Legal Heirs of the deceased
R2 vide Court order dated 28.08.2022 made in CMP.Nos.12569, 12571 &
12575 of 2022 in S.A.No.547/2013)
Prayer:- Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code to
set aside the Judgment and Decree dated 28.09.2012 in A.S.No.45 of 2011 on
the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Villupuram confirming the
Judgment and Decree dated 25.04.2011 in O.S.No.1 of 2009 on the file of the
learned Sub Judge, Gingee.
For Appellant : Mr.T.Jayalakshmi
for M/s. Paul & Paul
For Respondents : Mr.P.Dinesh Kumar
for Mr.D.Ravichander for R-3 to R-7
: R-1 & R-2 - Died
1/56
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/09/2025 07:20:06 pm )
S.A.No.547 of 2013
JUDGMENT
This Second Appeal has been filed to set aside the Judgment and Decree dated 28.09.2012 in A.S.No.45 of 2011 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Villupuram confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 25.04.2011 in O.S.No.1 of 2009 on the file of the learned Sub Judge, Gingee.
2. The plaint averments in brief are as follows:-
2.1. The Plaintiff and Defendants 2 and 3 are the children born to the first Defendant Mangathammal and Ranganatha Gounder. They constituted a Hindu Joint family. The properties mentioned in the suit are joint family properties consisting of Plaintiff and his father Ranganatha Gounder. The said Ranganatha Gounder had some ancestral properties derived out of oral partition made among his brothers. The ancestral properties were fertile lands equipped with good water source and as such surplus income was available.
Item Nos.1 to 5 of the suit properties are the joint family ancestral properties. On 1.5.1966, the father of the Plaintiff, Ranganatha Gounder, sold an Item of ancestral properties extending to 1 acre 21 cents to one Muniya Kounder showing himself as the guardian for the Plaintiff. Out of the above sale proceeds, Item No.6 was purchased from one Subbammal by a registered sale deed dated 27.7.1964. Likewise Item 7 of the property was purchased from Abdul Wahab Sahib by a registered sale deed dated 10.7.1965. On 19.3.1973 2/56 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/09/2025 07:20:06 pm ) S.A.No.547 of 2013 the suit Items No.8, 9 and 10 were purchased from one Mottaya Gounder. Items No.11 and 12 were purchased from one Elumalai Gounder on 26.11.1973. The 13th Item was purchased from one Kasiyammal and another on 27.03.1976. The 14th and 15th Items were purchased in the name of 1st Defendant from one Thandavarayan and his son by a registered sale deed dated 08.09.1971. A portion extending to 1 acre in Item No. 10 was purchased under sale deed dated 7.8.1978 from one Dhasthagir Sahib. The above properties so purchased were mingled with other ancestral properties and were enjoyed in common. Ranganatha Gounder had also exchanged some Items of ancestral properties with one Syed Yusuf Sahib by way of a registered deed of exchange dated 20.4.1988. Under that exchange deed, Ranganatha Gounder got Acre 1.20 of land in 16th Item.
2.2. The Items No.14 and 15 were purchased in the name of the 1 st Defendant, they were purchased out of the income derived from the joint family properties and also for the benefit of the joint family. The 1st Defendant had no independent income to purchase these properties. The 1st Defendant never claimed any individual right over the same. One Pandurangan, a brother of Plaintiff remained unmarried and died intestate prior to Ranganatha Gounder. Likewise, the sister of Plaintiff namely Parvathi also died intestate pre-deceasing her father. Therefore, the Plaintiff and his father continued to 3/56 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/09/2025 07:20:06 pm ) S.A.No.547 of 2013 enjoy all the joint family properties without making any division. The Plaintiff being the only son and having assisted his father in cultivating land contributed his time, energy and money for the betterment of the joint family. The 2 and 3 Defendants married during the life time of Ranganatha Gounder and settled in a happy atmosphere.
2.3. The Defendants were living away from the village where the suit properties are situated, and the Plaintiff was looking after his father who was very old and was aged 85 years at the time of his death. Since then the Plaintiff had been in exclusive enjoyment of the suit properties. As the suit properties are joint family properties, it is to be presumed that a partition had taken place on the death of his father. Therefore, the Plaintiff is entitled to 5/8 share and Defendants are each entitled to 1/3 share. While this being so, the Defendants on the instigation of others turned hostile towards the Plaintiff and were making all arrangements to sell away some of the joint family properties to 3rd parties in January 2007. The claim of the Defendants that Ranganatha Gounder had executed a settlement deed in their favour in respect of most of the Items in the joint family properties, is totally false. The father of the Plaintiff could not have executed any settlement in favour of the Defendants. The Plaintiff suspects that the Defendants could have influenced Ranganatha Gounder to 4/56 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/09/2025 07:20:06 pm ) S.A.No.547 of 2013 execute such a deed. The said Ranganatha Gounder who was not mentally alert for 15 years prior to his death could not have ignored the Plaintiff and given the joint family properties to his daughter alone. Even in case the settlement is taken as valid document, it would not confer title on Defendants 2 and 3 as the properties are joint family properties. The claim of the Defendants that the properties so settled in their names are the self acquired properties of Ranganatha Gounder, are totally false. Therefore, the Plaintiff filed O.S.No.93/2007 for bare injunction before the District Munsif, Gingee restraining them from alienating the properties and the suit ended in dismissal. Against that appeal was filed and it is pending. After the disposal of the above suit in O.S.No.93/2007 the Defendants appeared to have executed a sale deed in favour of the 4th Defendant, which cannot confer any title on the 4th Defendant. In any event the sale is not binding on the Plaintiff. Therefore, claiming 5/8 share, the Plaintiff has filed the suit for partition and for costs
3. The averments in the written statement filed by the Defendants in brief are as follows:
3.1. Except the facts which are specifically admitted, the rest of the plaint averments are denied as false. Having filed the suit, it is for the Plaintiff to prove the averments. The averment that the 1st Defendant is the mother of 5/56 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/09/2025 07:20:06 pm ) S.A.No.547 of 2013 the Plaintiff, 2nd and 3rd Defendants are his sisters, and his father was Ranganatha Gounder are admitted. Likewise the brother of the Plaintiff named Pandurangan and a sister named Parvathi died even prior to the death of his father Ranganatha Gounder, is admitted. It is true that on 17.10.2003 the said Ranganatha Gounder died. On 01.05.1966 Ranganatha Gounder sold the ancestral property and the properties were purchased by Ranganatha Gounder by way of sale deeds dated 27.7.1954, 10.7.1965, 19.3.1973 26.11.1973 and 27.3.1976. The facts that the 1st Defendant purchased a property on 8.9.1971, that Ranganatha Gounder purchased on 7.8.1978, and that Ranganatha Gounder exchanged the land by deed of exchange on 20.4.1988, are admitted.
Likewise, the filing of O.S.No.93/2007 by the Plaintiff on the file of Principal District Munsif, Gingee for a relief of bare injunction and that the suit was dismissed on 4.12.2008 is admitted. Against that judgment, the Plaintiff went for appeal is admitted.
3.2. Regarding the averments that the ancestral properties had good irrigation system and through that land Ranganatha Gounder purchased lands with the sale proceeds obtained on 1.5.1966 and with the help of income from the joint family properties etc. are not admitted. The further averments that the property was purchased by the funds furnished by Ranganatha Gounder on 6/56 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/09/2025 07:20:06 pm ) S.A.No.547 of 2013 8.9.1971 in the name of 1st Defendant and further averments that only from the income derived from the sale of ancestral properties the deed of exchange was made on 20.4.1988 by Ranganatha Gounder and all the suit properties belonged to joint family properties and jointly owned and possessed by all, are not accepted. After the death of Ranganatha Gounder the Plaintiff alone is exclusively enjoying the property is false. For the marriage of 2nd and 3rd Defendants more money was spent from the joint family income and Therefore, the deed of settlement executed by Ranganatha Gounder in favour of Defendants 1 to 3 is not valid and further the settlement deed was not executed by Ranganatha Gounder in a good state of mind as Ranganatha Gounder was not mentally well since 15 year prior to his death and Therefore, by deceitful means the deed of settlement might have been executed, are all denied 3.3. As a matter of fact, Ranganatha Gounder had very less ancestral property. He did not derive any income from the ancestral property, but rather he inherited debts. Then to settle all the debts, he had to sell the ancestral property on 1.5.1966 in favour of Muniya Gounder. The sale proceeds out of the land measuring 1.21 acres was used to settle the outstanding family loan. The balance amount was spent towards the family which includes the Plaintiff. 7/56 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/09/2025 07:20:06 pm ) S.A.No.547 of 2013 There was no surplus amount to be used for the purchase of new property. It is false to say that the Plaintiff also contributed his labour and income to purchase property for the joint family. Since Ranganatha Gounder did not have individual property, he took lands for lease from neighbours and earned some amount. He was also maintaining cattles, did brokerage in weekly market, and earned a sizeable amount. He also used to purchase baskets to be sold at higher rates in Chennai and other cities. Therefore, out of the income derived by his own efforts, the properties were purchased by Ranganatha Gounder separately and was enjoyed. Even the property secured out of deed of exchange dated 20.4.1988 is the self acquired property of Ranganatha Gounder. A reading of the deed of exchange would reveal the status of the property. It is totally incorrect to say that the suit properties Items No.1 to 5 are ancestral properties. In S.No.21/4 Item No.1, there is 0.17 and 1/4 cents of land available. Though property was purchased by Ranganatha Gounder from one Ramasamy Gounder on 17.5.1980, that property and other self acquired properties were settled in favour of 1 to 3 Defendants by the deed of settlement dated 14.12.1988. The above stretch of land in S.No.21/4 and suit properties Items 14 and 15 are the properties exclusively owned by the 1st Defendant as her personal properties. Therefore, the 1st Item of the property is not an ancestral property. The Plaintiff did not offer his labour in support of his father to derive 8/56 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/09/2025 07:20:06 pm ) S.A.No.547 of 2013 income. Ranganatha Gounder conducted marriage of the Plaintiff out of his personal income. But soon after the marriage, the Plaintiff quit the joint family and settled with his wife and thereafter Plaintiff did not live with his father in the joint family. Even for the marriage of Defendants 2 and 3, the Plaintiff did not offer any assistance. He preferred to be aloof. The properties purchased by Ranganatha Gounder was never enjoyed by the Plaintiff as joint family properties. The properties that stood in the name of the 1st Defendant was really enjoyed by her. The deed of settlement executed in favour of Defendants 1 to 3 is known to the Plaintiff. Therefore, the deed of settlement dated 14.12.1988 will bind the Plaintiff. It is false to say that Ranganatha Gounder was not physically and mentally well for 15 years prior to his death. However, the said Ranganatha Gounder executed a deed of settlement in favour of the Plaintiff with respect of S.No.21/1A measuring to an extent of Acre 1.20 out of 2.20 acres of land. From the date of settlement the Plaintiff has been enjoying the property. The above fact alone will disprove the case of the Plaintiff that the properties purchased by Ranganatha Gounder come under joint family property. Some of the properties purchased personally by Ranganatha Gounder have been sold to some 3rd parties and regarding those properties no relief has been sought for by the Plaintiff. That fact alone will prove that the Plaintiff has admitted that Ranganatha Gounder has purchased 9/56 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/09/2025 07:20:06 pm ) S.A.No.547 of 2013 the property on his own accord. Suit Item No.17 is a property purchased by Ranganatha Gounder from one Syed Asuthulah Sahib on 13.8.1982. The above property was included in the deed of settlement made by Ranganatha Gounder in favour of Defendants 1 to 3 on 14.12.1988. Except for suit Items 2,3,4 and 5, the rest of the properties were already settled in favour of Defendants 1 to 3. Therefore, after the lapse of 20 years, the Plaintiff cannot seek to declare the deed of settlement as invalid as it cannot be accepted and it is not maintainable due to the law of limitation. Except Item No.17, other properties were settled in favour of the Defendants 1 to 3 by the deed of settlement dated 14.12.1988, which were sold away by Defendants 1 to 3 on 10.12.2008 in favour of the 4th Defendant. Therefore, having derived lawful and valid title, the 4th Defendant should not be disturbed by the Plaintiff in enjoying the property. The suit that was once filed by the Plaintiff in O.S.No.93/2007 was dismissed, and against that an appeal A.S.No.3/2009 was filed, which is pending before this court. While things are being so, filing another suit amounts to abuse of process of law. The issues that could be framed in that suit had already been framed in O.S.No.93/2009 and decided. Therefore, this subsequent suit is not legally maintainable. The site and tiled house to an extent of 290 square meter in Natham S.No.31/5E in Mel Edalyalam village was sold by the Plaintiff and his son Jagadeesan to one Murugan S/o Natarajan on 28.8.2008. The above facts 10/56 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/09/2025 07:20:06 pm ) S.A.No.547 of 2013 have been suppressed by the Plaintiff. For the non inclusion of all properties also the suit is not maintainable. To sell the above property, neither the Plaintiff nor his son had any right. The suit as filed by the Plaintiff is not legally maintainable and Therefore, the suit should be dismissed with costs.
4. Based on the above pleadings, the trial court framed the following issues:
1) Whether the suit properties are the ancestral joint family properties?
2) Whether the suit Items No.14 and 15 of the properties are Individual properties of the 1st Defendant?
3) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for partition of 5/8 share in the suit property?
4) To what other reliefs?
Additional issue:-
1) Whether the Suit is maintainable?
5. After hearing both parties, the learned Sub Judge, Gingee by Judgment dated 25.04.2011 dismissed the Suit in O.S.No.1 of 2009.
6. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the Suit in O.S.No.1 of 2009 by the learned Sub Judge, Gingee by Judgment dated 25.04.2011, the unsuccessful 11/56 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/09/2025 07:20:06 pm ) S.A.No.547 of 2013 Plaintiff had preferred the Appeal in A.S.No.45 of 2011 before the learned Principal District Judge. After hearing both parties and on perusal of the records, the learned Principal District Judge dismissed the Appeal.
7. Aggrieved, the Plaintiff had preferred this Second Appeal.
8. Ms.T.Jayalakshmi, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant in the Second Appeal submitted that, the Appellant in the Second Appeal is the Plaintiff in O.S.No.01 of 2009 on the file of the learned Sub Judge, Gingee, Villupuram District. The Suit was filed by the Plaintiff against his mother and sisters/Defendants 1 to 3. The fourth Defendant was the purchaser of the property from the Defendants 1 to 3. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the Plaintiff that the Appellant (hereinafter as referred to as Plaintiff) had filed the Suit in O.S.No.93 of 2007 on the file of the learned Principal District Munsiff, Gingee, seeking bare injunction against his mother and sisters only for the purpose not to alienate the properties. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff's father viz., Ranganatha Gounder succeeded to the properties which were originally ancestral joint family properties. In the joint family partition, the properties were allotted to him. The Plaintiff's father died on 12.10.2003. Therefore, the 12/56 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/09/2025 07:20:06 pm ) S.A.No.547 of 2013 partition opens up. Therefore, the Plaintiff had sought bare injunction against the Defendants not to alienate the properties as he also has a share in the same. The Suit in O.S.No.93 of 2007 was dismissed after full trial. Therefore, the Plaintiff had filed Suit for partition seeking 5/8 share in the family property. The first Defendant/mother of the Plaintiff filed a written statement claiming that the father of the Plaintiff had purchased the properties, and that he executed settlement deed in favour of the Defendants. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the Plaintiff that the settlement deed executed by the father of the Plaintiff when he was alive had given only a limited share, and not an absolute right to his mother. She can enjoy the properties for her lifetime. However, after her lifetime, it has to be partitioned. Instead based on the settlement deed, she had executed the sale deed along with the Plaintiff's sisters in favour of the fourth Defendant. Therefore, the Plaintiff filed the Suit for partition.
9. The learned Counsel for the Plaintiff invited the attention of this Court to the Plaint averments and the averments in the written statement filed by the Defendants 1 to 3. Also, the learned Counsel for the Plaintiff invited the attention of this Court to the documents filed before the trial Court under Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-24, Ex.B-1 to B-9, and also to the deposition of P.W-1 to P.W- 13/56 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/09/2025 07:20:06 pm ) S.A.No.547 of 2013 3 and D.W-1 to D.W-3.
10. It is the case of the Plaintiff that the father of the Plaintiff had not given absolute right to the first Defendant, mother of the Plaintiff, in the settlement deed regarding the properties. Also, the learned Counsel for the Plaintiff invited the attention of this Court to the admission made by D.W-2 in the cross-examination regarding the share of the Plaintiff in the joint family properties. The learned Counsel for the Plaintiff invited the attention of this Court to the recitals in the settlement deed dated 21.12.1990 which was marked as Ex.B-5 and also to the kist receipt which was marked on the side of the Plaintiff for the Suit properties wherein the name of the Plaintiff and Plaintiff's father are found. It is the further contention of the learned Counsel for the Plaintiff that the alleged sale deed in favour of the Plaintiff's father was from the income derived from the ancestral property. Therefore, it is to be treated as joint family property. The learned trial Judge failed to consider the same and dismissed the Suit for partition by Judgment dated 25.04.2011 on the file of the learned Sub Judge, Gingee. Therefore, he seeks to set aside the Judgment and Decree passed by the trial Court as well as Appellate Court.
11. Thiru.P.Dinesh Kumar, learned Counsel for Mr. Ravichander, learned Counsel on record for the Respondents 3 to 7 submitted his arguments. 14/56 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/09/2025 07:20:06 pm ) S.A.No.547 of 2013 As per the submission of the learned Counsel for the Respondents, the Respondents in Second Appeal No.547 of 2013 are the Defendants in O.S.No.1 of 2009 on the file of the learned Sub Judge, Gingee. The Defendant
-1 is the mother of the Plaintiff. Defendant -2 and Defendant -3 are the sisters of the Plaintiff. Defendant-4 is the purchaser of the property from Defendants 1 to 3. Also, he is a distant relative of the Plaintiff and Defendant’s father Ranganatha Gounder. As per the plaint, there are 17 Items of properties. The Plaintiff in the plaint averred that the Items 1 to 5 are the ancestral joint family properties which were allotted to the father of the Plaintiff, Ranganatha Gounder through oral partition in his family. That the lands in Items 1 to 5 were fertile lands having irrigation facilities. That the lands yielded surplus income enabling his father to acquire new properties, in which the Plaintiff and his father were holding half share each. On 01.05.1966, the father of the Plaintiff, Ranganatha Gounder had for himself and for his minor children, the Plaintiff and his younger brother Pandurangan, had encumbered and sold the property, and purchased the properties in Items 6 to 13 and 16 in his name. Also from Items 1 to 5, he had purchased Items 15 and 16, in the name of the mother of the Plaintiff, the Defendant-1in the suit. Therefore, it is the claim of the Plaintiff that all the properties in Items 6 to 16 were acquired out of the income derived from Items 1 to 5 and also from the sale proceeds of Items 1 to 15/56 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/09/2025 07:20:06 pm ) S.A.No.547 of 2013
5.The father of the Plaintiff and Defendants 2 and 3/Ranganatha Gounder died on 17.10.2003. After his death, the Plaintiff was in exclusive enjoyment of the suit properties without any hindrance. The Defendants are living away from the suit village. Defendants 2 and 3 are living in their matrimonial homes. The Plaintiff was looking after his father till his death. The Plaintiff came to know that Defendants 1 to 3 had created document regarding the properties that was left intestate by the father of the Plaintiff, as though his father had created settlement deed in favour of Defendants 1 to 3 and they had attempted to sell the property to the 4th Defendant, all of which forced the Plaintiff to file a suit in O.S.No.93 of 2007 before the learned Principal District Munsiff, Gingee. In the same suit, the Defendants 1 to 3 filed written statement resisting the claim of the Plaintiff and the suit was for bare injunction restraining the Defendants 1 to 3, mother and sisters of the Plaintiff from creating encumbrances against the interest of the Plaintiff regarding suit properties in Items 6 to 16. Based on pleadings of the Plaintiff and the Defendants, the learned Principal District Munsiff had framed issues. Both sides had let in evidence.
12. On appreciation of evidence, the learned Principal District Munsiff had dismissed the suit in O.S.No.93 of 2007. Aggrieved, the Plaintiff had filed the Appeal before the learned Sub Judge, Gingee and the same is 16/56 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/09/2025 07:20:06 pm ) S.A.No.547 of 2013 pending.
13. Pending the Appeal against the dismissal of the suit for bare injunction filed by the Plaintiff in O.S.No.93 of 2007, the Plaintiff had filed subsequent suit with false averments claiming that father of the Plaintiff died intestate and suspecting that the mother and sisters of the Plaintiff had created documents as though his father had settled properties in their favour and sought partition as per Order II Rule 2 of C.P.C “2. Suit to include the whole claim.—(1) Every suit shall include the whole of the claim which the Plaintiff is entitled to make in respect of the cause of action; but a Plaintiff may relinquish and portion of his claim in order to bring the suit within the jurisdiction of any Court.”
14. When the Plaintiff had instituted earlier suit, he ought to have included the same prayer there also. But he had filed the suit for bare injunction. The subject matter of the suit was that the father had ancestral properties allotted to him in the family partition which he had sold and from the sale proceeds, purchased Items 6 to 16, and the father died intestate. Four years before the death of father, the younger brother of the Plaintiff Pandurangan and another sister Parvathy died. Therefore, the surviving legal heirs are the Plaintiff and the Defendants 1 to 3. Plaintiff being the only son, succeeded to the properties left intestate by the father. While so, the Defendants (mother and sisters) attempted to alienate the properties. 17/56 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/09/2025 07:20:06 pm ) S.A.No.547 of 2013 Therefore, he filed a suit for bare injunction restraining Defendants 1 to 3 from creating encumbrances in the suit property against the interest of the Plaintiff.
15. On appreciation of evidence, the learned Judge had dismissed the suit for bare injunction. In the course of the trial, the mother and sisters as Defendants of the Plaintiff had filed documents which were settlement deeds in the name of the mother and sisters, and sale deed in the name of the mother under Items 14 and 15. Therefore, Plaintiff cannot seek injunction against those Items of properties which the father of the Plaintiff had already settled during his lifetime. Now the properties stood in the name of the Defendants 1 to 3. Knowing fully well the facts of the case, from the outcome of the judgment, from the evidence in O.S.No.93 of 2007, the Plaintiff had wantonly filed the suit for partition with false averments as though, the father of the Plaintiff Ranganatha Gounder died intestate leaving Items 1 to 16 for the Plaintiff to succeed and he is in enjoyment of the properties as on the date of filing of the suit in O.S.No.1 of 2009, the suit for partition. Plaintiff as P.W-1 had filed affidavit as examination in chief and marked documents as Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-24.
16. Ex.A-1 is the certified copy of the sale deed dated 01.05.1966 by 18/56 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/09/2025 07:20:06 pm ) S.A.No.547 of 2013 the father of the Plaintiff and Defendants 2 and 3 in favour of Munia Gounder. Ex.A-2 is the certified copy of the sale deed executed by Subbammal and Muniammal in favour of the father of the Plaintiff and Defendants 2 and 3, Ranganatha Gounder. Ex.A-3 is the certified copy of the sale deed in favour of the father of the Plaintiff and Defendants 2 and 3 Ranganatha Gounder by one Abdul Wahab Sahib dated 10.07.1965. Ex.A-4 is the certified copy of the sale deed in favour of the father of the Plaintiff and Defendants 2 and 3 Ranganatha Gounder by Mottaiya Gounder dated 19.03.1973. Ex.A-5 is the certified copy of the sale deed dated 26.11.1973 executed by Devaraju Gounder and others in favour of the father of the Plaintiff and Defendants 2 and 3/Ranganatha Gounder. Ex.A-6 is the certified copy of the sale deed dated 27.03.1976 executed by Kasiammal and Raja Kandam in favour of the father of the Plaintiff and Defendants 2 and 3/RanganathaGounder. Ex.A-7 is the certified copy of the sale deed dated 08.09.1971 executed by Thandavaraiya Gounder and Annamalai Gounder in favour of the mother of the Plaintiff and Defendants 2 and 3 Mangathammal. Ex.A-8 is the certified copy of the exchange deed dated 20.04.1988 executed by Ranganatha Gounder/father of the Plaintiff and Defendants 2 and 3 and one Syed Yusuf Shahib. Ex.A-9 is the certified copy of the death certificate of Ranganatha Gounder. Ex.A-10 is the certified copy of sale deed executed by Rasthagir Sahib in favour of the father 19/56 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/09/2025 07:20:06 pm ) S.A.No.547 of 2013 of the Plaintiff and Defendants 2 and 3/Ranganatha Gounder. Ex.A-11 to Ex.A-23 are the kist receipts in the name of the Plaintiff and in the name of father of the Plaintiff Ranganatha Gounder. Ex.A-24 is the certified copy of the Patta in the name of Parvathy, Mangathamal and Ranganatha Gounder. From the evidence available in the earlier suit in O.S.No.93 of 2007, the Plaintiff was aware that the properties were acquired by his father out of his own source of income. The Plaintiff as P.W-1 was cross examined on behalf of the Defendants in this suit for partition in O.S.No.1 of 2009, whereby he had admitted the suggestions made on behalf of the Defendants that the father of the Plaintiff and Defendants 2 and 3, Ranganatha Gounder had during his lifetime had cultivated lands belonging to other people on lease and earned income to support the family and he was also involved in a cattle trade as broker.
17. That he used to purchase baskets made of bamboo made by the Narikuravars and sell it in and around Gingee and also in the villages in far off places. Also the mother of the Plaintiff, Defendant -1 Mangathammal used to assist her husband (father of Plaintiff) in all his avocations and thereby she too had derived income.
20/56 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/09/2025 07:20:06 pm ) S.A.No.547 of 2013
18. Therefore, the properties in Items 14 and 15 purchased under Ex.A-7 was purchased from her own source of income. The admission made by the Plaintiff in the cross examination indicates that he cannot claim partition. The father of the Plaintiff and Defendants 2 and 3 through a settlement deed dated 14.12.1988 executed a settlement deed in favour of the mother of the Plaintiff and Defendants 2 and 3.
19. Also the father of the Plaintiff and Defendants 2 and 3 had executed the settlement deed dated 21.12.1990 in favour of the Plaintiff. Also, after the marriage of the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff had set up an independent family and separated from his parents. Till the date of filing of the suit he was living separately and Therefore, the claim made by him that they were joint family cannot be accepted. He had admitted in his cross examination that after the marriage, he was living separately with his wife. He also admitted the suggestion on behalf of the Defendants that he had sold the property in Grama Natham house site along with his son Jagadeesan, the property was not included in the schedule mentioned Items. Also the property settled by the father in favour of the Plaintiff as per settlement deed dated 21.12.1990 was sold by him which was also not included in the schedule of properties. Therefore, the claim made by the Plaintiff in the Plaint that he came to 21/56 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/09/2025 07:20:06 pm ) S.A.No.547 of 2013 understand that his mother and sisters had fraudulently created a settlement deed in their favour against the interest of the Plaintiff as though the father of the Plaintiff had executed Settlement deed in favour of the mother and sisters is a false averment made wantonly by the Plaintiff. He had in the cross examination admitted that he had approached his mother and his sisters to purchase the property in his name to which his mother and sisters were not amenable. Therefore, he had filed a suit for partition. It is the clear admission made by him in the cross examination. Therefore, this suit for partition claiming 5/8 share is an abuse of the process of the Court only with an evil motive to harass the Defendants. He cannot seek a declaration that the settlement deed in favour of Defendants 1 to 3 as null and void. After more than 20 years the claim made by the Plaintiff in the Plaint that his father was not mentally alert in the later years of his life, nearly 15 years before his death, cannot be accepted. Therefore, the Plaintiff's contention that the father's mental incapacity was exploited by the Defendants 1 to 3 to create fraudulent deeds cannot be accepted as he admitted the execution of the settlement deed by Ranganatha Gounder in favour of the Plaintiff in the year 1990. When he was confronted regarding execution of a settlement deed in favour of the Defendants 1 to 3 by Ranganatha Gounder in the year 1988 he claimed ignorance. Knowing fully well, the execution of settlement deed by his father 22/56 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/09/2025 07:20:06 pm ) S.A.No.547 of 2013 during his lifetime in the year 1988 and Ranganatha Gounder having died on 17.10.2003, the claim made by the Plaintiff in the Plaint that Ranganatha Gounder died intestate is wantonly a false averment for which he has to be penalized. In his cross examination, the Plaintiff clearly admits that Ranganatha Gounder had involved in many avocations. He was a farmer cultivating lands taken on lease, he had bullock carts carrying agriculture yields to the nearby markets in and around Villupuram, he was involved in cattle trade as a broker, and he was also a real estate broker. Therefore, he had his own income. The Plaintiff claimed that he too contributed to the joint family.
20. It is to be noted that the properties acquired in Items 6 to 16 were acquired between 1971 to 1976. As per the plaint averments, the Plaintiff was aged 47 years as on 2009. Therefore, his year of birth will be 1962. In the year 1970, he would be aged 14, and thus, as a minor boy he cannot be expected to contribute to the joint family by his labor or his earnings. He had admitted in his cross examination that he studied up to SSLC. Hence, he is literate. Whereas his mother and sisters are illiterates. He admitted it. In the written statement also the Defendants had given their thumb impression that shows they are illiterates. And the status of the Plaintiff is that he is a literate and 23/56 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/09/2025 07:20:06 pm ) S.A.No.547 of 2013 worldly wise. He had attempted to exploit them by instituting suits. In the earlier suit O.S.No.93 of 2007, he sought for injunction and in the subsequent suit O.S.No.1 of 2019, he had sought for partition. The Plaintiff admitted the fact that the father of the Plaintiff had independent income and based on his independent income he had purchased the properties. He had also admitted that the joint family had debts, and to clear the debts, the father had alienated the properties. While so, the claim made by the Plaintiff that from sale of the fertile lands under Items 1 to 5 by Ranganatha Gounder, he had for himself and on behalf of the minor Plaintiff Elumalai and Minor Pandurangan purchased the properties 6 to 13 and 16, is a wanton false averment.
21. On proper appreciation of evidence, the learned Sub Judge, Gingee had dismissed the suit of the Plaintiff. On Appeal by the Plaintiff in A.S.No.45 of 2011, the learned Principal District Judge on independent assessment of the evidence available through the materials available before the learned Sub Judge, Gingee had dismissed the Appeal of the Plaintiff as Appellant. Therefore, this Second Appeal had been preferred. The Second Appeal has no merit. The earlier suit in O.S.No.93 of 2007 was dismissed. Knowing fully well, the same facts stated in the earlier suit, the subsequent suit had been instituted by the Plaintiff. The only difference is the prayer. 24/56 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/09/2025 07:20:06 pm ) S.A.No.547 of 2013 Earlier suit was for bare injunction restraining the Defendants /mother and sisters of the Plaintiff from alienating and encumbering the suit properties whereas the subsequent suit was for seeking partition of 5/8 share. Though the Plaintiff had the choice to include the prayer of partition in the earlier suit but he had wantonly not included it with an ulterior motive to file a subsequent suit and keep it pending. The Plaintiff had also not reserved his right to file partition suit subsequently or obtained leave of the Court to institute suit for partition separately, without which the suit framed for partition is not maintainable as per Order II Rule 2 of C.P.C. The conduct of the Plaintiff attracts the principle of res judicata. Except for the relief, what had been pleaded by the Plaintiff in both the suits are the same. What had been pleaded by the Defendants in the written statement in the earlier suit in O.S.No.93 of 2007 and the written statement filed by the Defendants in the present suit in O.S.No.1 of 2009 are the same. Therefore, by the pleadings, the res judicata is attracted. The suit in O.S.No. 93 of 2007 having been between the same parties having the same pleadings, the earlier suit for bare injunction having been dismissed, this suit on the same cause of action and the same relief is not maintainable. Knowing fully well that the Plaintiff does not have a case, he has filed a case as though he has a case, suppressing material facts that the father of the Plaintiff and Defendants 2 and 3 had during his lifetime wanted to settle 25/56 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/09/2025 07:20:06 pm ) S.A.No.547 of 2013 the properties between his legal heirs so that after his death there will not be litigations before the Court over the properties left behind by the father. Contrary to the thoughts of the father Ranganatha Gounder, the Plaintiff had indulged in unwarranted and unwanted litigation thereby harassing his mother and sisters. The Plaintiff after his marriage set up separate family, Therefore,. he did not live to the expectation of his parents, and thus, he was not part of the joint family. He had set up a separate family and lived as such till the death of his father. Therefore, he cannot be heard to claim that the properties were enjoyed jointly till the death of his father and that the father died intestate. Therefore, he succeeded the properties, are all false claims. In the light of the specific admission., regarding the averments in the Plaint, the suggestion was made by the learned Counsel for the Defendant before the learned Sub Judge in O.S.No.1 of 2009 based on the pleadings of the Defendants in the written statement. The suggestions by the learned Counsel for the Defendant was admitted in cross examination by the Plaintiff. For the suggestion that the father executed settlement deed in favour of the Plaintiff in the year 1990, was admitted by him, but the said property was not included in the list of the Items of the plaint schedule properties, was also admitted by him. Grama natham house site belonging to the family was sold by the Plaintiff and Defendant was also admitted by him and that the same was also not included in the list of 26/56 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/09/2025 07:20:06 pm ) S.A.No.547 of 2013 Items of the suit property was also admitted by him. When he was confronted regarding execution of settlement deed by his father during his lifetime in the year 1988 long prior to his death, and that the father Ranganatha Gounder died in the year 2003, 15 years after execution of the settlement deed in favour of the mother and sisters of the Plaintiff, he had not denied the suggestion, but he was answering it evasively as if he did not know about it. When father of the Plaintiff had executed settlement deed in favour of Plaintiff, it is accepted. When the father of the Plaintiff executed settlement deed prior to execution of settlement deed in his favour in the year 1988, the claim had been made by the Plaintiff that his father was not mentally alert 15 years prior to his death. In that case, the settlement deed executed in favour of the Plaintiff also goes. He cannot blow hot and cold on the same issue. The settlement deed in favour of Plaintiff is two years subsequent to execution of the settlement deed in favour of the Defendants 1 to 3 which was not stated in the plaint by the Plaintiff, which was specifically stated by the Defendants in the written statements for which they had marked Ex.B-5, the settlement deed dated 21.12.1990 in favour of the Plaintiff. The settlement deed dated 14.09.1988 in favour of the Defendants 1 to 3 was marked by them as Ex.B-3. Therefore, if the claim has been made by the Plaintiff that his father was not mentally alert 15 years prior to his death, in that case, he should have furnished medical records for the 27/56 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/09/2025 07:20:06 pm ) S.A.No.547 of 2013 treatment undergone by father of the Plaintiff Ranganatha Gounder during his life time. He did not file any medical records to meet such averments regarding the mental health of his father. He was not acting as a dutiful son to Ranganatha Gounder. He had set up a separate home and family. Being the only son, the conduct of the Plaintiff that he had set up a separate family in a separate home shows that they were not in jointness of the family. When the father had independent source of income has been admitted, the properties acquired by him was from the independent income for which the Plaintiff cannot have any grievance. The father acquired properties from his own income as self acquired properties. The father has every discretion to execute settlement deed. Apart from that, as per the provisions of Hindu law, jointness of a family is not presumed, it is to be established. The Plaintiff failed to establish the claim made by him in the plaint. Therefore, the learned Sub Judge by judgment dated 25.04.2011 had rightly dismissed the suit for partition filed by the Plaintiff. The learned Principal District Judge, Villupuram on independent assessment of the evidence available before the learned Sub Judge in O.S.No.1 of 2009 had dismissed the Appeal in A.S.No.45 of 2011 preferred by the Plaintiff as Appellant. Therefore, both the Courts had by concurrent judgment arrived at a same conclusion that the Plaintiff is not entitled to claim partition. Therefore, against the concurrent 28/56 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/09/2025 07:20:06 pm ) S.A.No.547 of 2013 findings, there cannot be any Second Appeal. The Second Appeal is bereft of any merits. Second Appeal is to be dismissed.
22. By way of rejoinder, the learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the properties in Items 2, 3, 4 and 5, 10 and 17 are not included in the settlement deed in the name of the mother and sisters. Therefore, it is available for partition. Also he would submit that after the dismissal of the earlier suit in O.S.No.93 of 2007 pending Appeal before the learned Sub Judge, the Defendants 1 to 3 had sold the property to Defendant- 4. Also he would submit that in Items 10 and 12, half portion was only settled by Ranganatha Gounder. Therefore, the half share in these properties are still available for partition. Therefore, the Plaintiff is entitled to claim partition. Also he would submit that the Plaintiff was in possession of the properties that was proved by documents as Ex.A-11 to Ex.A-23. Therefore, the Appellant claims the properties in Items 2, 3, 4, 5, 10 and 17 are available for partition. Half share in those Items to be partitioned to the Plaintiff.
23. On comparison of Ex.B-3 and Ex.A-1, it is found that the properties in Ex.A-1 is not included in the schedule Items. Ex.B-3 settlement deed in favour of Defendant-1 to Defendant-3 contains the properties in plaint 29/56 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/09/2025 07:20:06 pm ) S.A.No.547 of 2013 schedule 1, 6 to 12.
24. The properties in Item 16 viz., S.No. 21/1A measuring an extent of 2 acres was settled by the father of the Plaintiff and Defendants 2 and 3 under Ex.B-5 in favour of the Plaintiff as per settlement deed dated 21.12.1990. Therefore, the same is considered as his separate property which cannot be subjected to partition. As per the settlement deed by the father of the Plaintiff and Defendants 2 and 3 in favour of the Mother and sisters of the Plaintiff under Ex.B-3 dated 14.12.1988, which are in plaint schedule Items Nos.1,6 to 12 and 16 are settled. Therefore, Items 2, 3 4 and 5 is open to partition. The claim made by the learned Counsel for the Plaintiff that in Item 10, half share is available for partition is not accepted. Since as per the S.No.25/12, the whole extent is 0.07 cents that had been settled in favour of Defendants 1 to 3. Therefore, nothing is available for partition.
25. As per the Hindu Succession Act as amended in the year 2006, the daughters have equal share with that of the son in the joint family property or the property left intestate by the father. Now as amended, the legal heirs of Alamelu, the 2nd Respondent in the Appeal are the Respondents 5 to 7. They are entitled to 1/3 share of the properties in Items 2, 3, 4 and 5. Similarly, the 30/56 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/09/2025 07:20:06 pm ) S.A.No.547 of 2013 3rd Respondent in the Appeal, daughter of Ranganatha Gounder is entitled to 1/3 share. The Plaintiff is also entitled to 1/3 share, but not the 5/8 share as claimed by the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff is entitled to 1/3rd share of the properties left intestate by the father in Items 2, 3, 4 and 5, if it is available as on the date of filing of the suit, till the date of the disposal of the suit.
26. During evidence, it is not available. The Defendant in the written statement had claimed that Items 1 to 5 are self-acquired properties of the father Ranganatha Gounder. He had alienated it during his lifetime. That is the evidence available before the trial Court through Defendant-2/Alamelu who died during the pendency of the Appeal, she is not literate. She had given thumb impression in the deposition as well as in the written statement. She had stated that the Items 1 to 5 that had been self-acquired property of the father and the same had been alienated. Therefore, Item 1 is settled in favour of the Defendant 1 to 3 whether the rest of the Items are available for partition is not clear from the evidence of the parties. Therefore, this Court is unable to grant preliminary decree. If Items 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 are available, the Plaintiff is to enjoy the same.
27. On 26.05.2024 while admitting this Second Appeal, this Court 31/56 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/09/2025 07:20:06 pm ) S.A.No.547 of 2013 had framed the following Substantial Questions of Law:-
(i) Whether the trial Court as well as First Appellate Court were right in law in overlooking the specific recitals in Ex.A-1 to the effect that the Plaintiff's father had sold the ancestral properties including the share of the minors and purchased the property in favour of the Plaintiff's mother and also the recitals in settlement deed in Ex.B-3 giving limited right and no absolute right to the Plaintiff's mother?
(ii) Whether the Appellate Court as well as trial Court overlooked the fact that there was no proof or pleadings to show that the properties in Items 14 and 15 were purchased by first Defendant out of her independent income?
(iii) Whether the trial Court and the Appellate Court were right in law in dismissing the Suit for partition on the ground that it is hit by res-judicata because of the dismissal of the earlier Suit for bare injunction?
28. Heard the learned Counsel for the Appellant and the learned Counsel for the Respondents 3 to 7.
29. Perused the original records of the learned Sub Judge, Gingee in O.S.No.1 of 2009 and the Judgment of the learned Sub Judge in O.S.No.1 of 2009 and the Judgment of the learned Principal District Judge in A.S.No.45 of 32/56 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/09/2025 07:20:06 pm ) S.A.No.547 of 2013 dismissal of the Appeal in A.S.No.45 of 2011.
30. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred as per their status before the trial Court. The Appellant in this Second Appeal is the Plaintiff before the learned Sub Judge, Gingee. The Respondents herein is the Defendants before the learned Sub Judge, Gingee in O.S.No.1 of 2009. Therefore, they are referred as Plaintiff and Defendants.
31. The Plaintiff had instituted the Suit in the year 2009 seeking partition of his 5/8 share in the Suit property and to allot 5/8 share to the Plaintiff and 1/8 share to the Defendants 1 to 3. The first Defendant is the mother of the Plaintiff and the Defendants 2 and 3 are the sisters of the Plaintiff and the fourth Defendant is the purchaser of the property from the Defendants 1 to 3.
32. Prior to the filing of the Suit for partition by the Plaintiff herein in O.S.No. 1 of 2009, the Plaintiff had earlier filed another Suit in O.S.No.93 of 2007 on the file of the learned Principal District Munsiff, Gingee seeking bare injunction restraining the Defendants 1 to 3 who are the mother and sisters of the Plaintiff from encumbering the Suit properties till the share of the Plaintiff 33/56 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/09/2025 07:20:06 pm ) S.A.No.547 of 2013 is allotted. After full trial, the Suit in O.S.No.93 2007 was dismissed against which, he had preferred an Appeal and the Appeal is pending before the learned Sub Judge, Gingee. Pending Appeal against the dismissal of O.S.No.93 of 2007, the Plaintiff had filed Suit in O.S.No.1 of 2009 seeking partition. As per the Plaint averments, the father of the Plaintiff was allotted lands by oral partition in the family of the father which were ancestral properties. Item 1 to 5 in the Suit properties were allotted to the father of the Plaintiff by oral partition. When the Plaintiff and his younger brother were minor, the father had sold some of the properties and purchased other properties. The younger sister and younger brother of the Plaintiff died prior to the death of the father of the Plaintiff. The father of the Plaintiff died on 17.10.2003 as per the plaint, and the father of the Plaintiff died intestate. As per the Plaintiff, Item-6 of the property was purchased by the father of the Plaintiff from one Subbammal through a registered sale deed dated 22.07.1964. Item-7 was purchased from Abdul Wahab Sahib on 10.07.1965, Items-8, 9 and 10 were purchased by the father of the Plaintiff on 19.03.1973 from one Mottaiya Gounder Items-11 and 12 were purchased from one Elumalai Gounder on 26.11.1973. Item-13 was purchased from one Kasi Gounder through a registered sale deed dated 27.03.1976, Items 14 and 15 were purchased in the name of the mother of the Plaintiff under registered sale 34/56 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/09/2025 07:20:06 pm ) S.A.No.547 of 2013 deed dated 08.09.1971, a portion extending 1.00 acre and Item-16 was purchased from one Thasthagir. The father of the Plaintiff/Ranganathan had exchanged some Items of ancestral properties with one Syed Yusuf Sahib by way of registered deed of exchange dated 20.04.1988, wherein he got a portion extending 1.20 acre is comprised in Item-16. As per the Plaint averments, the Plaintiff claims the father had executed the alleged settlement deed in favour of the Defendants, in which, most of the Items were joint family property. As per the claim made by the Defendants, the alleged settlement deed was not brought to the light till date of filing of the Suit in O.S.No.93 of 2007. The Defendants do not have right over them. The Plaintiff suspects that the Defendants might have influenced his father to execute a settlement as he was very old and claimed that the alleged settlement deed is not true and valid. The Plaintiff suspects that the Defendants ought to have taken signature of the father without disclosing the contents and character of the deed of settlement. His mind would not have accompanied the signature as he was not mentally alert for more than 15 years prior to his death. The alleged settlement deed might have been obtained by fraud on the father of the Plaintiff as he never intended to ignore the Plaintiff and give it to his daughters alone in the Joint family properties.
35/56 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/09/2025 07:20:06 pm ) S.A.No.547 of 2013
33. The Defendants had vehemently contested the claim of the Plaintiff disputing the claim that the father of the Plaintiff was not in fit state of mind to execute the settlement deed. As per the written statement filed by the Defendants 1 to 3, the mother and sisters, the father of the Plaintiff had executed settlement under Ex.B-3 in favour of the Defendants 1 to 3 in the year 1988. He had also executed a settlement deed in favour of the Plaintiff in the year 1990. After 20 years, the Plaintiff cannot challenge the settlement deed executed by their father. It is stated by the Defendants that after the marriage of the Plaintiff, Plaintiff set up his family separately. Therefore, the claim made by him that the Plaintiff and his father constituted joint Hindu family is not true. The father of the Plaintiff himself had settled the property in favour of the Plaintiff in the year 1990. The Plaintiff and his son had encumbered a property which is a house site in Grama Natham S.No.31/5A measuring an extent of 290 sq.mt which the Plaintiff and his son Jagadeesan sold to one Murugan s/o. Natarajan residing in New Street, Sankarapuram vide sale deed dated 28.02.2008. This property was not included in the schedule of properties. Also the Defendants claim that in the earlier Suit filed for permanent injunction, the Plaintiff restrained the Defendants 1 to 3 from encumbering the Suit properties. The Defendants had filed written statement disputing the claim of the Plaintiff and also claiming that all disputes had to be 36/56 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/09/2025 07:20:06 pm ) S.A.No.547 of 2013 included in the earlier Suit. Suit include whole claim as per Order II, Rule 2 of CPC without which the earlier Suit was not maintainable and Therefore, the earlier Suit was dismissed. Based on the pleadings, learned Sub Judge had framed issues in O.S.No.1 of 2009. The Plaintiff had adduced evidence as P.W-1, when the Plaintiff was cross-examined, he had clearly admitted that he sought to purchase the lands from Defendants 1 to 3, mother and sisters. They did not accede to the request of the Plaintiff instead they had made arrangements to sell the properties to the fourth Defendant. Therefore, he had filed the Suit. This part of the evidence is very important. It indicates that the Plaintiff was aware of the settlement made by the father in favour of the Defendants 1 to 3. The settlement in favour of the Defendants was executed on 14.12.1988 as per the written statement filed by the mother and sisters as Defendants 1 to 3. When the settlement deed was executed in favour of Defendants 1 to 3 on 14.12.1988 and a property was settled in favour of the Plaintiff in the year 1990 by a Document No.1652/1990, the property was not brought into the scheduled property by the Plaintiff. The claim made by the Plaintiff that the father of the Plaintiff was not mentally alert was not adduced in evidence. The Plaintiff did not give out the details of the date of execution of settlement deed, is found to be suppression of material facts. When he was confronted regarding the settlement deed executed by the father in favour of 37/56 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/09/2025 07:20:06 pm ) S.A.No.547 of 2013 the Defendants 1 to 3, he claimed ignorance. When he was confronted regarding settlement in his favour by his father, he admitted, the Plaintiff cannot blow hot and cold on the same issues. If the nature of the properties are ancestral joint family properties, then the settlement deed in his favour also cannot be accepted, thereby, he cannot expect the Court to accept the settlement deed executed by his father in his favour and expect the Court to set aside the settlement deed executed by the father in favour of his mother and sisters/Defendants 1 to 3. There is a clear admission by the Plaintiff that he and his wife are living separately from the date of marriage. On the date of filing of the Suit, the mother of the Plaintiff was living with the sisters of the Plaintiff. Therefore, the claim made by the Plaintiff that the father died intestate and that the properties are enjoyed by the Plaintiff, is found contrary to the facts. Knowing fully well that the father during his lifetime had settled the property in favour of the Plaintiff and separately in favour of the Defendants 1 to 3 and also the mother having purchased some Item of the properties by her own, the claim of the Plaintiff that she does not have independent income to purchase the property itself is found unacceptable. In the plaint he stated that the Items 1 to 5 are the ancestral properties allotted to the father of the Plaintiff, however, during cross-examination, the Plaintiff says that he had not stated so. The Plaintiff's claim is that the Suit properties 38/56 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/09/2025 07:20:06 pm ) S.A.No.547 of 2013 were purchased based on the income derived from the properties by the joint efforts of the Plaintiff and his father. As per the Plaint as on the date of institution of Suit, the Plaintiff was aged 47 years in the year 2009. Therefore, his year of birth would be 1962. The years in which properties were acquired by his father, as per the sale deeds are 1964, 1965, 1973, 1971, 1976, 1978 and 1988. He was a minor on the date of sale deeds except the sale deed of the year 1988. When he was confronted regarding the source of income of his father, he stated that his father took agricultural land on lease and he also drove bullock carts by transporting agriculture yields to nearby markets. He was also involved in the sale of cattle in the Village. He was also involved in real-estate dealings. He used to purchase baskets from Narikuravar in large quantities and sell them in and around Gingee and other nearby markets was admitted by the Plaintiff in cross-examination. He also admitted that his mother was also involved along with his father in all these activities. Therefore, she had independent income. Therefore, the claim made by the Plaintiff in the Plaint as well as in his deposition as examination-in-chief that his mother did not have independent income has to be rejected. On the date of purchase by the father and mother, the Plaintiff was a minor. Therefore, the properties were purchased as joint family properties. On behalf of the joint family constituting the Plaintiff and his father, the claim that the Plaintiff also 39/56 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/09/2025 07:20:06 pm ) S.A.No.547 of 2013 contributed income, is found unacceptable since he was a minor during purchase of lands. Further in the cross-examination, he had clearly admitted that he approached his mother and sisters for purchase of the properties settled in their favour by the father in the year 1988, however when he was asked regarding the year of settlement, he claimed ignorance. But he was aware that there was a settlement deed and he wanted to purchase it, but the Defendants were not amenable. Therefore, he had instituted the Suit. This much of evidence is clear from the cross-examination of Plaintiff as P.W-1. He had denied that he had not stated that Items 1 to 5 are ancestral joint family properties which is contradictory to his pleadings in the Plaint. The Defendants 1 to 3 are mother and sisters of the Plaintiff. In the earlier Suit in O.S.No.93 of 2007 before the learned District Munsif, Gingee, the Defendants herein had raised the very same contention based on that the Suit was dismissed. Therefore, the Plaintiff was aware of the facts regarding the settlement deed executed by the father in favour of the mother and sisters for the Suit properties. When the Plaintiff, after his marriage, had set up independent family, he cannot claim to be constituting a joint family along with his father. There is clear evidence that he was living separately. The father had settled the properties before his death to avoid future litigation between his offspring whereas the Plaintiff in the Plaint claims that the father 40/56 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/09/2025 07:20:06 pm ) S.A.No.547 of 2013 died intestate, knowing fully well that the father had settled the property in favour of mother and sisters and that the father had settled property in favour of the Plaintiff as per settlement deed dated 21.12.1990 in Document No.1652 of 1990. When that be the case, the claim of the Plaintiff that the father was not mentally alert 15 years prior to his death is found to be a wanton suppression of fact. The Plaintiff had filed the Suit as an abuse of the process of the Court as claimed by the Defendants 1 to 3 in the written statement. The Plaintiff claims that he is in possession of all the Suit Items as on the date of the filing of the Suit as legal heir of his father. Therefore, seeks partition of 5/8 share. This is found to be false and wantonly he had claimed false averments in the Plaint.
34. In the ruling reported in 2011 9 SCC 451 in the case of Marabasappa (dead) by LRs. Vs. Ningappa (dead) by LRs, there is no presumption regarding jointness. Here, the Plaintiff had approached the Court knowing fully well the facts of the case that the father during his lifetime settled some of the properties in favour of the Defendants 1 to 3 and some properties in favour of the Plaintiff, to avoid future litigation after the death of the Ranganatha Gounder. Still, the Plaintiff had knocked the doors of the Court, suppressing the facts and claiming falsehood which is nothing but 41/56 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/09/2025 07:20:06 pm ) S.A.No.547 of 2013 harassment of his mother and sisters. As rightly pointed out in the written statement, the Plaintiff cannot seek declaration declaring the settlement deed executed by the father in the year 1998 after more than 20 years. From the Plaint and the written statement, it is found that the Plaintiff is worldly wise. In his cross-examination, Plaintiff had admitted that he had studied up to SSLC and he can read and write, he cannot understand English, but the instructions were given to his Counsel by him. Therefore, he is responsible for false averments in the Plaint. The Defendants/ mother and sisters are not literate. They had only affixed their thumb impressions in the written statement. That shows they are not literates. The mother was also involved in all the activities regarding earning income as the father of the Plaintiff had been involved. Therefore, there was jointness between the husband and wife in earning their livelihood by hard work. They had earned properties. The son who became irresponsible after marriage, had set up an independent family. Therefore, the father had settled property in his favour in the year 1990 and settled many other properties in favour of the mother and sisters to avoid litigation after his death. Contrary to the father's expectation, the son had indulged in the very same activity by harassing his mother and sisters by filing a Suit for partition ignoring the settlement by his father wherein properties were settled separately in favour of the son and in favour of the mother and daughters. The Plaintiff 42/56 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/09/2025 07:20:06 pm ) S.A.No.547 of 2013 had not approached the Court with clean hands. Therefore, it is an abuse of the process of the Court.
35. The Plaintiff was examined P.W-1 and the persons who supported him as P.W-2 and P.W-3 and the second Defendant, had let in evidence as D.W-1. The Plaintiff as P.W-1 in the cross-examination claims that he did not state that Item 1 to 5 are ancestral properties of his father, which is contradictory to his claim in the plaint. Therefore, the Plaintiff failed to prove ancestral nucleus. There is clear evidence that none of the properties had been acquired by the father in the joint name of father and minor son. The claim made by the Plaintiff that he too contributed to the joint income of the family, cannot be accepted from the point of view of an ordinary prudent man. Suppressing all these facts, he had filed a Suit with false averments only to harass his mother and sisters, which is contradictory to the expectation of the father who did not want his legal heirs to fight over properties after his death. The claim made by the Plaintiff is to be proved by the Plaintiff. If he claims that the father of the Plaintiff/Ranganathan was not in a fit state of mind, and if it were true, he should have filed medical records regarding treatment of his father for which the Plaintiff should have been residing with his parents as it is only then he can take care of his parents. Instead he admitted that he had 43/56 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/09/2025 07:20:06 pm ) S.A.No.547 of 2013 been residing separately from his parents. The claim made by the Plaintiff that the mother and sisters created fraudulent documents, it is for him to prove it through cogent evidence.
36. On perusal of the records before the trial Court, there is no document regarding medical treatment offered to Ranganathan in his later years by the Plaintiff. Just because the father executed a settlement deed in the year 1988, it does not mean that the father was not mentally alert. It does not mean that his signature was exploited by the mother and sisters of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff/P.W-1 admitted that his father executed the settlement deed in his favour in the year 1990. Therefore, the Court cannot pick and choose. The Plaintiff cannot pick and choose, the Plaintiff cannot approbate and reprobate over the same issue. When the father of the Plaintiff acted prudently by settling the properties that he earned on his own in favour of his wife and daughters on the one hand and to the son who had set up independent family through a separate settlement deed. The son (Plaintiff) cannot claim that all the properties are ancestral joint family properties of which the father died intestate and the mother and sisters had created false document. The said claim made by the Plaintiff is unacceptable before any Court of law. 44/56 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/09/2025 07:20:06 pm ) S.A.No.547 of 2013
37. The Plaintiff has to prove the original ancestral nucleus in the Plaint. He claims Items 1 to 5 are ancestral properties of the father, whereas in his cross examination, he clearly denies that Items 1 to 5 were stated to be ancestral properties. Therefore, he failed to prove ancestral nucleus. Contra to that, he had admitted in his cross-examination that the father involved himself in taking agricultural properties on lease and cultivating the properties, through such cultivation, he earned income. He had used bullock carts to transport agriculture produce to nearby villages. He had involved in cattle sale as broker in cattle trade. He was involved as a broker in sale of land, he was involved in buying baskets from Narikuravar and selling it in Gingee and to other far off markets. In all these activities, the mother of the Plaintiff/first Defendant also was involved. Therefore, the claim made by the Plaintiff that the mother did not have separate income cannot be accepted. When the Plaintiff was born in 1962, he cannot be expected to have contributed to the purchase of the property by the father as he was a minor. Except for the property mentioned in the exchange deed in 1988, all other properties were purchased when the Plaintiff was a minor. When he does not claim in the Plaint regarding ancestral properties of father, he failed to prove ancestral nucleus. In such consideration, as per the sale deed, standing in the name of the father and mother of the Plaintiff, they are the self-acquired properties of 45/56 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/09/2025 07:20:06 pm ) S.A.No.547 of 2013 the father and mother for all the properties in Items 1 to 17 as per Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-8 and Ex.A-10. Therefore, the dismissal of the Suit by the learned Sub Judge, Gingee, was on proper appreciation of evidence.
38. On independent assessment of evidence by the learned Principal District Judge, Villupuram in A.S.No.45 of 2011, the learned Principal District Judge had on proper appreciation of evidence rejected the claim of the Plaintiff for partition and dismissed the Suit. The learned Principal District Judge had in the course of the Judgment in Paragraph No. 11 observed that the father of the Plaintiff executed settlement deed in favour of Defendants 1 to 3 in the year 1988 and his father died in the year 2003. As long as Ranganatha Gounder, father of the Plaintiff was alive, he did not question the deed of settlement made in favour of Defendants 1 to 3. P.W-2 an P.W-3 did not withstand cross-examination. Therefore, the evidence of P.W-2 and P.W-3 did not support the claim of the Plaintiff. In short, the Plaintiff approached the Court with unclean hands, thereby, he is not entitled to claim partition contradictory to his father's expectation. The father of the Plaintiff had clearly settled the properties that he had acquired by his own hard-earned money separately. The properties were settled in favour of Plaintiff as well as in favour of the Defendants 1 to 3. While so, the Plaintiff claimed partition 46/56 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/09/2025 07:20:06 pm ) S.A.No.547 of 2013 stating that the father died intestate on 17.10.2003 as per Ex.A-9 at the age of 85, and filed the Suit with false averments. After dismissal of the earlier Suit in O.S.No.93 of 2007 when the fact of the case was agitated, the Plaintiff was aware of the nature of the properties in the enjoyment of the Plaintiff as well as the Defendants. Wantonly, he had filed a Suit for partition claiming 5/8 share which is found to be a false claim made only with an intention to harass the Defendants.
39. On perusal of Ex.A-1, Ranganatha Gounder had sold his property in S.No.75/1, 0.50 cents, S.No.71/10 0.89 cents, S.No.71/14 0.32 cents, S.No.71/17 0.17 cents along with right of irrigation well by 1/3 share for Rs.3,000/- in the year 1966 to settle the mortgage loan and for purchase of the properties. Ex.B-3 is executed by the father in favour of the mother with limited rights to the mother and absolute rights to the daughters, which is extracted hereunder:-
“,jdoapy; fz;lJk; ehd; Ra fpiuak; bgw;W mDgtpj;j brhj;ij cdf;F brl;oy;bkz;ll; hf bra;Jf; bfhLj;J ,Uf;fpwJ. ,jd; fPH;ff; z;l brhj;ij mile;J ve;jtpj ghuhjPdKk; bra;ahky; mDgtpjJ ; cd; $PtDf;F gpwF ek;kpd; Fkhu';;fSf;Fk; br";rp jhYf;fh khtl;lk; fhrp ft[zl; u; kidtpa[khd mynkY. nky;
vilahsk; jhYf;fh b$a';bfhz;lhd; kidtpak[ hd b$ayl;Rkp
,tu;fSk; fPH;f;fz;l brhj;ij mile;J rkaJkhf mile;J
ru;tRje;jpuj;Jld; Mz;L mDgtpjJ ; f; bfhs;s ntz;oaJ
brhj;ij ,d;nw cd;dplk; xg;g[fb; fhLj;J gl;lh khWjy; bra;J bfhLj;Jtpln; ld;/” 47/56 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/09/2025 07:20:06 pm ) S.A.No.547 of 2013
40. Therefore, the recitals in Ex.B-3 grants limited rights to the mother and absolute rights to the daughters/Defendants 2 and 3, it is specifically stated that it is absolute self-acquired property. Now that the daughters Defendants 2 and 3 had sold the property to Defendant-4 as the Defendants 2 and 3 it is absolute property. Therefore, the conduct of the Defendants 1 to 3 mother of Plaintiff and sisters of Plaintiff jointly executed sale deed in favour of Defendant-4 is found proper. The Plaintiff cannot object to the same as he has no right in those properties under Ex.B-3 settlement deed. Therefore, the dismissal of the Suit by the learned Sub Judge in O.S.No.1 of 2009 and the dismissal of the Appeal in A.S.No.45 of 2011 by the learned Principal District Judge cannot be found perverse. It is proper and on strong reasoning. The substantial question of law-1 is answered against the Plaintiff and in favour of the Defendants 1 to 3. Both the Courts below had not overlooked the recitals in Ex.A-1 sale deed and Ex.B-3 settlement deed in favour of Defendants 1 to 3 giving limited right to Defendant-1 and absolute right to Defendants 2 and 3, daughters of Ranganatha Gounder.
Substantial question of law-2:
48/56
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/09/2025 07:20:06 pm ) S.A.No.547 of 2013
41. The Appellate Court as well as the Trial Court had properly appreciated the evidence regarding the claim that Items 14 and 15 were purchased by the first Defendant out of her independent income. The Plaintiff as P.W-1 in his cross-examination admitted that the mother was also involved in all the activities of the father regarding earning their livelihood, earning income, purchase of baskets and sale of baskets, sale of cattle, sale of land and cultivating land on lease. In all these activities, the Defendant-1 mother was also involved. Therefore, she had enough resources to purchase the property. Further, it is the claim of the Plaintiff that he had also contributed his income to the family for purchase of properties in all the sale deeds under Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-7 and Ex.A-10 that are of the year 1964, 1965, 1973, 1976, 1971, and 1978. However, in all these period execution of these sale deeds, the Plaintiff was a minor aged between 14 and 16 years. The trial Court and the first Appellate Court had on proper analysis of evidence of D.W-1 and admission of Plaintiff as P.W-1 in his cross-examination based on pleadings of the Defendants 1 to 3 in the written statement and the recitals in Ex.A-7 sale deed in favour of Defendant-1 mother of Plaintiff and Defendants 1 and 2 had accepted Ex.A-7 sale deed in favour of Defendant-1, mother of Plaintiff and Defendants 2 and 3. The sale deed of the year 1971, dated 08.09.1971 is more than 30 years old. As per Sections 90, 91 and 92 Plaintiff is barred from 49/56 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/09/2025 07:20:06 pm ) S.A.No.547 of 2013 challenging the recitals of Ex.A-7 sale deed of the year 1971 and the suit in O.S.No.1 of 2009 was filed in the year 2009. In 1971 the Plaintiff was a minor. He cannot challenge the recitals in Ex.A-7 sale deed. Therefore, the substantial question of law-2 is answered against the Plaintiff and in favour of the Defendants 1 to 3.
The trial Court and the first Appellate Court are right in accepting the contention of the first Defendant, mother of the Plaintiff and Defendants 2 and 3 that the property in Items 14 and 15 was purchased by the mother of the Plaintiff and Defendants 2 and 3 by her own income under Ex.A-7 sale deed in the year 1971.
Substantial question of law-3:
42. As per the amendment to Hindu Succession Act, 2005, the daughters are also entitled to equal share as that of the son. Here, the father had settled the property in favour mother of Plaintiff and Defendants 1 and 2 with limited rights and to the daughters Defendants 1 and 2 with absolute rights under Ex.B-3 in the year 1988. The properties sold by the father under Ex.A-1. The father of the Plaintiff had settled the property in favour of the Plaintiff in the year 1990, the property settled in favour of Plaintiff under Ex.B-5 in the year 1990. The Plaintiff's claim that the father of the Plaintiff 50/56 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/09/2025 07:20:06 pm ) S.A.No.547 of 2013 was not in sound state of mind fifteen years prior to his death and therefore, the settlement deed in favour of his mother and sisters was created fraudulently cannot be accepted as the father of the Plaintiff had settled property in favour of Plaintiff in the year 1990, two years after executing settlement deed in favour of mother of Plaintiff and sisters of Plaintiff which had not been included in the Suit for partition. Also, in the written statement, the Defendants states that the Grama Natham house site was sold by the Plaintiff and his son. Therefore, what was sold under Ex.A-1 was equally granted to the Plaintiff by the father of the Plaintiff. Therefore, he cannot have any grievance that ancestral properties was sold and what was acquired was from the income derived from the ancestral properties. There is admission by the Plaintiff that the father of the Plaintiff was involved in agriculture on lease obtained from various landowners, in brokerage in the sale of cattle, and also in the sale of baskets purchased from the Narikuravar in markets in and around Gingee. The first Defendant had clearly stated the fact of her earning income from the avocation carried out by her sharing the avocation of her husband, father of Plaintiff and Defendants 2 and 3. Therefore, her pleadings and evidence as D.W-1 is sufficient to prove independent income of Defendant-1 to purchase property in Items 14 and 15. Moreover, Plaintiff cannot challenge the sale deed of the year 1971 under Ex.A-7 after several decades in the year 51/56 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/09/2025 07:20:06 pm ) S.A.No.547 of 2013 2009. It is against the provisions of Limitation Act and against the presumption under Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act. The Plaintiff himself admitted in his cross-examination that his mother shared the avocation of his father in all avocation carried out by his father to earn income. Therefore, the appreciation of evidence by the learned Sub Judge, Gingee in O.S.No.1 of 2009 and appreciation of evidence independently by the learned Principal District Judge are found proper. Items 14 and 15 were purchased by the first Defendant from her own independent income.
43. The Judgment of the learned trial Judge and the learned Principal District Judge dismissing the Suit for partition on the ground that it is hit by a res judicata cannot be considered as the issues framed in the earlier Suit is not available before this Court as the issues were not identical. At the same time in the written statement, it is clearly stated that the contentions raised by the Defendants in the Suit in O.S.No.1 of 2009 was raised in the earlier Suit in O.S.No.93 of 2007 were the same, but the difference was that the relief in the earlier suit was for injunction whereas in the subsequent suit was for partition. As per Order II Rule 2 of Code of Civil Procedure, all the facts are to be included as a whole claim. Therefore, on that ground, the earlier Suit was dismissed and the dismissal of the earlier suit holds good in this case also. 52/56 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/09/2025 07:20:06 pm ) S.A.No.547 of 2013 The claim of the Plaintiff in the earlier Suit was for permanent injunction restraining the Defendants 1 to 3 to sell the properties by encumbering the properties whereas the Defendants in the earlier Suit had clearly stated that they are selling the property based on the settlement deed executed by Ranganatha Gounder in favour of Defendants 1 to 3. The same stand is taken by the Defendants in this Suit also. Therefore, the pleadings are the same with regard to the Defendants. Relief sought for in the earlier Suit was for permanent injunction whereas in the subsequent Suit, the relief was for partition of 5/8 share by the Plaintiff. The claim made by the Plaintiff and the claim made by the Defendants are the same in both the Suits. Therefore, the issue of res judicata cannot be strictly found out, at the same time, it is hit by Order II Rule 2 of Code of Civil Procedure. The Suit include whole claim, requirement of part of claim, and all the issues of the plaint should have obtained leave of the court, which is not so in the Suit claim. The Plaintiff having failed in his earlier attempt had instituted the subsequent Suit seeking partition. To decide the res judicata, the issue involved in both the Suit should be the same. However, here the issues are different. The earlier Suit was for permanent injunction, and the subsequent Suit is for partition. The pleadings are the same attracting Order II Rule 2 Code of Civil Procedure, however strictly speaking res judicata is not attracted. Based on proper 53/56 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/09/2025 07:20:06 pm ) S.A.No.547 of 2013 appreciation evidence, earlier Suit was dismissed. Knowing fully well of the dismissal of the earlier Suit, the Plaintiff had filed the subsequent Suit suppressing the materials available through the evidence in the earlier Suit in O.S.No.93 of 2007, where the Defendants had claimed the same contention that the father of the Plaintiff had executed the settlement deed in the year 1988 in favour of the Defendants 1 to 3. Knowing fully well of all those facts, the subsequent Suit filed as though the father of the Plaintiff died intestate and claiming that the father of the Plaintiff was not in a fit state of mind 15 years prior to his death, and his lack of mental alertness was exploited by Defendants 1 to 3 to create fraudulent deed of settlement in favour of the Defendants 1 to 3 and thus, the Plaintiff sought partition of 5/8 share. The said claim of the Plaintiff is found to be suppression of truth and suppression of fact in an attempt to seek partition. The Plaintiff had not approached the Court with clean hands. Therefore, the Plaintiff is not entitled to any relief in this Suit. Therefore, the substantial question of law – 3 is answered in favour of the Plaintiff. It will not help the Plaintiff to get a decree. The Plaintiff cannot succeed in the Suit in O.S.No.1 of 2009 on the file of the learned Sub Judge, Gingee. The Plaintiff is not entitled to relief of partition as claimed by the Defendants in the written statement that it is an abuse of process of the Court.
54/56 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/09/2025 07:20:06 pm ) S.A.No.547 of 2013 In the result, this Second Appeal is dismissed with heavy costs of Rs.1,00,000/- to the Plaintiff under Section 35 A of Code of Civil Procedure to the Defendants 1 to 3 in O.S.No.1 of 2009 on the file of the learned Sub Judge, Gingee. The Judgment and Decree dated 28.09.2012 in A.S.No.45 of 2011 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Villupuram confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 25.04.2011 in O.S.No.1 of 2009 on the file of the Sub Judge, Gingee is confirmed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
03.07.2025
shl/dh
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
55/56
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/09/2025 07:20:06 pm )
S.A.No.547 of 2013
SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP, J.,
shl/dh
To
1. The Principal District Judge,
Villupuram.
2. The Sub Judge, Gingee.
3. The Section Officer,
V.R.Section,
High Court, Madras.
Judgment made in
Second Appeal. No.547 of 2013
03.07.2025
56/56
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/09/2025 07:20:06 pm )