Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: For AYES in A.Ponnusamy (Died) vs R.Palanisamy on 17 February, 2026Matching Fragments
2. The case of the plaintiff is that Sangappa Gounder and Kuppanda Gounder are brothers. Kuppanda Gounder had no children whereas Sangappa Gounder had 2 sons namely, Ramsamy Gounder and Ayee Gounder. The plaintiffs are the legal heirs of Ayee Gounder and the defendants are the legal heirs of Ramasamy Gounder. The said Kuppanda Gounder executed two settlement deeds dated 07.08.1933 settling 2 acres out of 6.02 acres and 7 anganam out of 14 anganam house in favour of Ayee Gounder and his proposed wife Tmt. Rangammal. After the death of Ayee Gounder, his brother Ramasamy Gounder arranged for a partition under the partition deed dated 12.04.1961 between himself and Ponnusamy / 1st plaintiff for himself and as a guardian for his brother minor Chinnasamy. In the said partition, Ramasamy Gounder was allotted 'A' schedule property. Ponnusamy and his minor brother Chinnasamy were allotted 'B' schedule property. The plaintiffs 2 to 4 were not made as parties in the partition deed dated 12.04.1961, and is no reference about the settlement deed dated 07.08.1933 in the said partition deed dated 12.04.1961. Under such circumstances, the plaintiffs came to know about the said settlement deed only in December 2009. Hence, the plaintiffs. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/02/2026 01:31:23 pm )
ii. Whether the Courts below were right in upholding Ex.A2, in the absence of the daughters of Ayee Gounder having been made parties to the said document?’’
7. Mr.N.Manokaran, the learned counsel for the appellants would submit that admittedly, Kuppanda Gounder had half share in item 1(6.02 acres) and item 2 (14 anganam house). He had no children, therefore, he had executed Ex.A1 settlement deed dated 07.08.1933 in favour of Ayee https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/02/2026 01:31:23 pm ) Gounder in respect of 2 acres out of 6.02 acres and 7 anganam out of 14 anganam house. Recitals in Ex.A1 clearly indicate that the physical possession has been handed over to the settlee/ Ayee Gounder. During the lifetime of Ayee Gounder, his brother Ramasamy Gounder (father of D1 and D2) did not dispute the settlement deed/ Ex.A1. Under such circumstances, excluding the extent settled under Ex.A1, the remaining extents were alone available for partition on 12.04.1961 (Ex.A2). But after the death of Ayee Gounder in the year 1958, the father of the defendants 1 and 2 had managed to include Ex.A1 properties in Ex.A2 partition deed dated 12.04.1961, detrimental to the interest of the plaintiffs.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/02/2026 01:31:23 pm )
12. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant further contends that the Plaintiffs 2 to 4/Daughters are entitled to get share as per Ex.A1 settlement deed. Under Ex.A1 settlement deed dated 07.08.1933, late Kuppanda Gounder had settled 2 acres out of 6.02 acres and 7 anganam out of 14 anganam house in the name of Ayee Gounder. The properties settled under Ex.A1 are the separate properties of Ayee Gounder, in which his daughters/ plaintiffs 2 to 4 and equally his wives are legally entitled to get equal shares along with the 1st plaintiff Ponnusamy and late Chinnasamy (P5 and P6 are his legal heirs) as per Section 8 (a) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, because they are Class I heirs as per the Schedule. Unfortunately, the Ld. First Appellate Court has proceeded as if all the properties are ancestral, and the plaintiffs 2 to 4 were not coparceners. In the absence of any pleadings for "blending" in the written statement, such a conclusion would take away the property rights of the daughters as Class I heir for their father Ayee Gounder.
21.Heard on both sides and records perused.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/02/2026 01:31:23 pm )
22. The specific contention of the learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs is that, the plaintiffs are entitled for a share in the suit properties on the basis of Ex.A1 settlement deed dated 07.08.1933 executed by Kuppanda Gounder in favour of Ayee Gounder in respect of 2 acres out of 6.02 acres and 7 anganam out of 14 anganam house. It was denied by the defendants stating that Ex.A1 settlement deed was never acted upon and the claim of the plaintiffs is barred by limitation and estoppel. However, neither the trial Court nor the First Appellate Court have framed necessary issue or point for consideration in this regard. Since the First Appellate Court has addressed the above issue and rendered findings in this regard, the absence of specific points for determination in the first Appellate Court judgment does not vitiate the decision of the first Appellate Court. The entire claim of the plaintiffs revolves around the alleged settlement deed dated 07.08.1933 marked as Ex.A1. The plaintiffs submits that Ex.A1 settlement deed executed by Kuppanda Gounder in favour of Ayee Gounder and Rangammal, since he had no children and the recitals in Ex.A1 clearly indicate that the physical possession has been handed over to the settlee/Ayee Gounder. During the life time of Ayee gounder, his brother Ramasamy Gounder, father of the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/02/2026 01:31:23 pm ) defendants 1 & 2 did not dispute the settlement deed. Under such circumstances, the properties mentioned in Ex.A1 settlement deed were not available for partition took place on 12.04.1961 under Ex.A2. While so, the father of the defendants 1 & 2 manage to include Ex.A1 properties in Ex.A2 partition deed, after the demise of Ayee Gounder in the year 1958, detrimental to the interest of the plaintiffs. However, the plaintiffs failed to prove that the alleged settlement deed was acted upon at any point of time. No single document was produced to establish possession, enjoyment, or mutation in the name of Ayee Gounder and Rangammal. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents/defendants, mere registration of documents does not ipso facto transfer title unless it is accepted by the donee accompanied by delivery of possession. No patta, chitta, adangal, or tax receipts stands in the name of the donees, nor any revenue mutation is shown to have taken place. In the absence of such material, the claim of possession or enjoyment of the donees is wholly unsubstantiated. It would only indicate that Ex.A1 settlement deed was not given effect. Further, there was a partition on 12.04.1961 under Ex.A2 partition deed in which the 1st plaintiff along with his minor brother took part. Subsequently, the 1st plaintiff executed another partition https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/02/2026 01:31:23 pm ) deed in the year 1989 under Ex.B.1 with respect of the properties allotted to him under Ex.A2 partition deed. This would goes to show that he had accepted the partition which took place in the year 1961. Though the plaintiffs would contend that they came to know about Ex.A1 settlement deed only in December 2009 cannot rest their claim based on the above document for the reason that, the 1 st plaintiff being a signatory in Ex.A2 partition deed and later executed another partition deed in 1989 between his family members. Having remained silent for over five decades and having derived benefits under the partition, the plaintiffs are estopped in equity and law from asserting any fresh claim on the basis of the said settlement deed. The partition deed having been validly executed, acted upon and enjoyed for decades, cannot now be reopened after the passage of more than 50 years.