High Court · 2025

C.S.No.67 of 2024IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 29.07.2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABUC.S.No.67 of 20241.Velayudam2.Rathi Thripurasundari…PlaintiffsVs.Mrs.D.Mahalakshmi @ D.Poppy…DefendantPRAYER: Plaint filed under Order IV Rule 1 of O.S.Rules r/w Order VII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to pass a judgment and a preliminary decree in favour of the plaintiffs by allotting 11/36th share to the 1st plaintiff, 11/36th share to the 2nd plaintiff and 14/36th share to the defendant pertaining the suit schedule property by dividing it metes and bounds. For Plaintiffs : Mr.G.Senthil KumarFor Defendant : Set ex parteJUDGMENTThis instant suit has been filed for the passing of a preliminary decree in favour of the plaintiffs by allotting 11/36th share to the 1st plaintiff, 11/36th share to the 2nd plaintiff, and 14/36th share to the defendant in respect of the suit schedule property, on the basis that they 1/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.S.No.67 of 2024are co-owners of the said property.2. The case of the plaintiffs is that the suit schedule property originally belonged to one Rajamanikam Mudaliyar, who executed a settlement deed on 04.02.1964 in favour of his wife, children, and grandchildren. Subsequently, on 16.10.1970, the wife, children, and grandchildren of late Rajamanikam Mudaliyar entered into an agreement of sale with one Ramanujam, which, however, was never effected. After the demise of the wife and children of late Rajamanikam Mudaliyar, the grandchildren succeeded to the suit schedule property. Out of the three grandchildren, two sold their respective undivided shares in the suit schedule property to the present plaintiffs, with the original agreement holder Ramanujam being a confirming party to the sale. The defendant is the remaining grandchild who has not sold her share. Hence, the plaintiffs have filed the present suit seeking partition of their respective shares in the suit schedule property. Accordingly, the suit prays for allotment of shares to the plaintiffs and the defendant in the proportions mentioned above.3. On the side of the plaintiffs, the first plaintiff has been examined as PW1 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P4. The sole defendant was set ex-parte on 20.02.2025.2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.S.No.67 of 20244. Heard Mr.G.Senthil Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs.5. Mr. G. Senthil Kumar, learned counsel for the plaintiffs, submits that the suit schedule property originally belonged to one Rajamanikam Mudaliyar. He submits that Rajamanikam Mudaliyar executed a settlement deed dated 04.02.1964, registered as Document No. 3693 of 1964, in favour of his wife, two children, and three grandchildren. He further submits that, under the terms of the settlement deed, the wife of Rajamanikam Mudaliyar was granted life interest over the entire property. Upon her demise, the life interest over 2/6th share along with the absolute right over 1/6th share was to devolve on his son, and the absolute right over the remaining 3/6th share was to devolve on his daughter. He also submits that, after the lifetime of the son of Rajamanikam Mudaliyar, his life interest share of 2/6th devolved absolutely upon the grandchildren, in the proportion of 1:1:2.6. He contends that the settlees entered into an agreement of sale on 16.10.1970 with one Ramanujam, who subsequently filed a suit for specific performance in O.S. No. 2513 of 1996, the plaint of which has been marked as Ex.P1. He further submits that, upon the demise of the 3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.S.No.67 of 2024wife and children of Rajamanikam Mudaliyar, the three grandchildren of Rajamanikam Mudaliyar, who are the children of his daughter, became the surviving legal heirs to the property. The property thus devolved upon the three grandchildren in the shares of 11/36, 11/36, and 14/36, respectively.7. He submits that two of the three grandchildren sold their respective undivided shares to the present plaintiffs through registered sale deeds dated 15.07.1996, bearing Document Nos. 1353 and 1360 of 1996, which were marked as Ex.P2 and Ex.P3. He further submits that the plaintiffs approached the defendant, the remaining grandchild, who has not sold her share for partition. He contends that the plaintiffs also caused a legal notice dated 17.08.2023 to be issued to the defendant, but the same was returned with the postal endorsement ‘no such person’. The legal notice and the returned cover were marked as Ex.P4.8. He contends that, without effecting partition of the plaintiffs’ and defendant’s respective shares, the suit property cannot be put to its best use. He further submits that the defendant remained absent despite due service of summons and was set ex parte on 20.02.2025. Therefore, he prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to decree the suit as prayed for.4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.S.No.67 of 20249. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the plaintiffs and perused the materials available on record.10. From the materials placed on record and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs, it is evident that the suit schedule property originally belonged to Rajamanikam Mudaliyar, who, under a settlement deed dated 04.02.1964 (Doc. No.3693/1964), conferred life interest on his wife and vested absolute rights upon his son, daughter and grandchildren in specified shares. Upon the demise of his wife and children, the property devolved upon the three grandchildren of Rajamanikam Mudaliyar, in the ratio of 11/36, 11/36, and 14/36 shares respectively. Out of these, two grandchildren conveyed their undivided shares to the present plaintiffs by way of registered sale deeds (Ex.P2 & Ex.P3), thereby vesting the plaintiffs with 22/36th undivided share in the suit property.11. The defendant, being the remaining grandchild, continues to hold an undivided 14/36th share. Despite issuance of legal notice (Ex.P4) seeking partition, the defendant neither responded nor contested the proceedings and was set ex parte on 20.02.2025. In view of the uncontested evidence and the clear title flowing through the settlement deed and subsequent sale deeds, the plaintiffs have established their 5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.S.No.67 of 2024entitlement to seek partition and separate possession of their respective shares.12. In the result, this Court passes a Preliminary Decree as follows:(1) It is declared that the 1st Plaintiff is entitled to 11/36th share and the 2nd Plaintiff is entitled to 11/36th share in the suit schedule property.(2) It is declared that the Defendant is entitled to 14/36th share in the suit schedule property.(3) The plaintiffs are entitled to seek separate possession of their respective shares by filing an application for final decree through appointment of an Advocate Commissioner, for division of the suit schedule property by metes and bounds. There shall be no order as to costs.29.07.2025kakList of witnesses examined on the side of the plaintiffs:PW1- Mr.Velayudam List of documents marked on the side of the plaintiffs:ExhibitsDocumentsDatedExP1The certified copy of the plaint in O.S.No.2513/1996.11.04.1983ExP2Photocopy of the sale deed document No.1353/1996 in favour of the 1st plaintiff (Compared with original, verified and returned)15.07.19966/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.S.No.67 of 2024ExP3Photocopy of the sale deed document No.1360/1996 in favour of the 2nd plaintiff.15.07.1996ExP4Office copy of the legal notice along with original return cover 17.08.202329.07.2025kak7/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.S.No.67 of 2024K.KUMARESH BABU, J.kakC.S.No.67 of 202429.07.20258/8