Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

12. The learned counsel for the respondents would submit that there is no dispute in respect to the relationship between the parties. The said Kuppayammal had two sons and one daughter. The first plaintiff is the grand- son of Kuppayammal. The first defendant had purchased the property from the sons of Kuppayammal and no any sale deed was executed either by Palaniyammal or by legal heirs of the said Palaniyammal. It is also an admitted fact that the Kuppayammal and Sellappagounder have jointly https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/02/2026 04:11:17 pm ) purchased the property and they are each entitled to 1/2 share. After the demise of Kuppayammal, her two sons and daughter, who is the mother of the 1 st plaintiff are entitled to 1/6 share over the property. After the demise of Sellappagounder, her daughters Kuppathal and Samiyathal are equally entitled to the property from the father of the 1 st plaintiff. After the demise of Palaniyammal, the 1st plaintiff’s father married to Kuppathal and had two daughters, namely Valliyathal and Samiyathal. After the demise of mother of 1 st plaintiff, viz., Palaniyammal, her share would devolve on her husband Sellakumara gounder and the 1st plaintiff. Since the father of the 1st plaintiff was married to the daughter of Sellappagounder, namely Kuppathal and after the demise of Kuppathal, her property has to be divided between the father of the 1st plaintiff and the daughters of Kuppathal, thereby the 1 st plaintiff is entitled to 7/36 share of the property. The trial Court has dismissed the suit on the ground that the suit is barred by limitation. Earlier, the suit was filed for partition and the same was dismissed for default. As far as the partition is concerned, there is no bar to file a fresh suit, even after the dismissal of the previous suit. The previous suit has not adjudicated on merits. Therefore, res judicata will not arise. There are no pleadings in respect of res judicata in the case in hand. The trial Court has dismissed the suit on the ground of limitation. Therefore, the first Appellate Court has rightly appreciated the fact and allowed the appeal holding that the suit is not barred by limitation. While answering the issue no.1, and https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/02/2026 04:11:17 pm ) setting aside the decree and judgment of the trial Court, the first appellate observed that the plaintiffs are entitled to 7/36 share of the properties. The trial Court has erroneously dismissed the suit on the ground of limitation. The first Appellate Court held that the appellants are entitled to pay the Court fee under Section 37(2) of Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act (in short, TNCF & SV Act) and held that once there is a joint possession, there is no question of limitation. Therefore, the first Appellate Court has rightly decreed the suit and the second appeal is liable to be dismissed.

13. This Court heard both sides and perused the material records of the case.

14. In this case, there is no dispute in respect to the relationship between the parties. It is also an admitted fact that originally the properties belonged to Kuppayammal and Sellappagounder, and they had jointly purchased the properties in the year 1942. In pursuance thereto, the said Kuppayammal and Sellappagounder are entitled to 1/2 share each. The said Kuppayammal died intestate leaving behind her sons Chinnasamy and Kuppusamy and one daughter, Palaniyammal who married to Sellakumara gounder, who had one son viz., 1st plaintiff. After the demise of Kuppayammal, two sons and one daughter are equally entitled to the property. Since the daughter of Kuppayammal, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/02/2026 04:11:17 pm ) namely Palaniyammal died, her property has to be devolved to 1st plaintiff and his father, and already the sons of Kuppayammal, namely Chinnasamy and Kuppusamy sold the properties to the 1st defendant. Therefore, the share of Palaniyammal, devolved on her husband Sellakumara gounder and her son 1st plaintiff Palanisamy. After the demise of Palaniyammal her husband Sellakumara gounder was re-married to the daughter of Sellappagounder namely, Kuppathal and she had two daughters namely Valliyathal and Samiyathal and the 1/2 share of Kuppathal would devolve on two daughters, namely Valliyathal and Samiyathal. Since Sellakumara gounder, who is the father of the 1st plaintiff got re-married the said Kuppathal and had two daughters Valliyathal and Samiyathal, after the demise of Kuppathal, Sellakumara gounder is entitled to a share along with her daughters. After the demise of Sellakumara gounder his share has to be devolved between the 1 st plaintiff and his two daughters born through the second wife namely, Valliyathal and Samiyathal. Therefore, the plaintiffs are entitled to 7/36 share of the suit properties. The defendants also not disputed the relationship and the entitlement of the share.