High Court · 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED :21.01.2025CORAMTHE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVIS.A.Nos.715 & 716 of 20041.Kuppammal2.Arulmozhi3.Elangovan4.Thiruselvi5.Thirumaldevi6.Senthil7.Latha...appellants in both appealsVs1.Meenakshiammal (Died)2.Saravanan3.Jagadeeswaran4.D.Pushpa Ammal5.D.Salammal6.D.Sivapushanam7.D.Vijaya... Respondents in S.A.No.715 of 2004* 1st appellant recorded as LR and RR4 to 7 brought on record as LRs of the deceased R1 vide order of Court dated 06.01.2011 made in CMP.Nos.1663 & 1664/10.1\11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

1.Meenakshiammal (Died)2.K.V.Krishnan (Died)3.Saravanan4.Jagadeeswaran5.D.Pushpa Ammal6.D.Salammal7.D.Sivapushanam8.D.Vijaya... Respondents in S.A.No.716 of 2004*S.A.No.716 of 2004 is not pressed against R2. vide memo dated 25.09.2024 & Court order dated 24.09.2024 made in S.A.No.716 of 2004 (PBBJ)** Memo recorded 2nd respondent given up, in Vide Court order dated 24.09.2024 in CMP.No.17597 of 2022 in S.A.NO.716 & 715 of 2004. (PBBJ).*** 1st appellant recorded as LR and RR5 to 8 brought on record as LRs of the deceased R1 vide order of Court dated 06.01.2011 made in CMP.Nos.1663 to 1666/10.PRAYER in S.A.No.715 of 2004:Second Appeal filed Under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, against the Judgment and decree dated 26.02.2003 passed in A.S.No.4 of 2001 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Gudiyatham in reversing the judgement and decree dated 27.03.1996 passed in O.S.No.443 of 1981 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tirupattur.PRAYER in S.A.No.715 of 2004:Second Appeal filed Under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, against the Judgment and decree dated 26.02.2003 passed in A.S.No.5 of 2001 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Gudiyatham in reversing the judgement and decree dated 27.03.1996 passed in O.S.No.2018 of 1978 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tirupattur.2\11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis For Appellants in both appeals: Mr.P.ManiFor R4 to R7 in S.A.No.715 of 2004 and R5 to R8 in S.A.No.716 of 2004: Mr.A.SivajiFor R3 in S.A.No.715 of 2004: Mr.M.Tamil Thendral ArasuFor R1 & R2: DiedFor R3 in S.A.No.716 of 2004:No appearanceFor R4 in S.A.No.716 of 2004: Mr.M.Tamil Thendral ArasuCOMMON JUDGMENTThe appellants have filed these Second Appeals against the judgment and decree dated 26.02.2003 passed in A.S.No.4 of 2001 and A.S.No.5 of 2001, respectively, by the Subordinate Court, Gudiyatham, which reversed the judgment and decree dated 27.03.1996 passed in O.S.No.443 of 1981 and O.S.No.2018 of 1978, respectively, by the District Munsif Court, Tirupattur.2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as they were ranked in the original suit.3. Challenging the reversal findings of the First Appellate Court, the appellants have preferred these appeals.3\11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

4. Two suits were filed by the plaintiffS, Lakshmiammal, and her daughter, Meenatchi. The suits pertained to disputes over land and house properties. Both suits were dismissed by the trial court, prompting appeals, A.S.Nos.4 of 2001 and 5 of 2001, which were allowed by the First Appellate Court. Aggrieved by the findings, the appellants have now filed the present Second Appeals.5. When the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that, irrespective of the grounds raised in the appeals, all the parties are close relatives and should consider an amicable settlement. This Court proposed a settlement concerning the land and house properties. However, the counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs raised objections, asserting that both the house and land properties exclusively belonged to Lakshmiammal, and the defendants had no right to claim any share.4\11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

6. It is undisputed that Lakshmiammal had one daughter, Meenatchiammal, who was married to Duraisamy. Duraisamy and Meenatchiammal had five daughters: Kuppammal, Pushpammal, Salammal, Sivapushanam, and Vijaya. The eldest daughter, Kuppammal, was married to Gajendiran, the son of Narayanasamy. Narayanasamy and Govindaraj (Lakshmiammal’s husband) were brothers. Kuppammal and Gajendiran had five sons and two daughters. The defendants/appellants in the case are Gajendiran, Kuppammal, and their children. 7. During the pendency of the proceedings, Meenatchiammal passed away, leaving behind her five daughters. The four younger daughters (Pushpammal, Salammal, Sivapushanam, and Vijaya) are contesting the appeals as respondents, while Kuppammal’s branch constitutes the appellants.8. The house property under dispute is located at Door No.60/42, Pillaiyar Koil Street, 5th Block, Kamatchi Amman Pettai, Gudiyatham 5\11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Town, North Arcot District, with an extent of 2400 sq. ft. According to the respondents/plaintiffs (the Meenatchiammal branch), this house is the absolute property of Govindaraj, and neither Narayanasamy nor his legal heirs/defendants have any right to claim a share.9. The appellants contended that Narayanasamy was not originally given any house property. They argued that all members of the family were born and brought up in the house, which is an ancestral property in which they have rightful shares. As of now, due to the pending proceedings, the said house is in a dilapidated condition and remains closed. This is an admitted fact.10. It is also an admitted fact that the elder daughter, Kuppammal, was married to Gajendiran, who is the first defendant in this case. The plaintiffs, representing the Meenachiammal branch, relied on a Will to support their claim. However, before the trial court, no witnesses other than Meenachiammal were examined to prove the validity of the Will or the authenticity of other documents presented by them. As a result, the trial 6\11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis court dismissed the claim. However, the First Appellate Court reversed this decision.11. According to the plaintiffs/respondents, one of the shares belonging to Periyasamy was already given, and he had left the family. The house property in question was jointly enjoyed by Narayanasamy (Gajendiran’s father) and Govindaraj under the management of Govindaraj. 12. Considering the fact that Meenatchiammal, the elder daughter, was married to Gajendiran, there is a possibility that the said house property was jointly enjoyed. The suit was filed in 1978, and for all these years, neither the legal heirs of Govindaraj nor the legal heirs of Narayanasamy have enjoyed the property. Instead, they have been seeking a division of the property through the courts. After deliberation, this Court has decided to allot 800 sq. ft. out of the total 2400 sq. ft. in the house property to the branch of the appellants/defendants. The remaining 1600 sq. ft. is directed to be allotted to the remaining daughters of Meenatchiammal (Pushpammal, Salammal, Sivapushanam, and Vijaya).7\11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

13. Accordingly, each of the four daughters is entitled to 400 sq. ft. out of the 1600 sq. ft. The 800 sq. ft. allotted to the defendants’ branch includes the house situated at the frontage.14. Regarding the disputed landed property of 2 acres and 6 cents, it is asserted that this property belongs to Meenatchiammal. As discussed earlier, Meenatchiammal left behind five daughters, and all are equally entitled to 40 cents each. The elder daughter, Kuppammal, is thus entitled to 40 cents. However, the counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs objected, stating that 1 acre had already been settled in favor of Kuppammal’s husband, and this property is not under dispute.15. The dispute concerns only 2 acres and 6 cents, out of which Kuppammal is entitled to 40 cents. However, she has chosen to take 30 cents in S.No. 31/7. Out of the remaining extent in S.No. 31/7, the four other daughters (Pushpammal, Salammal, Sivapushanam, and Vijaya) are equally entitled to shares of around 42 cents each. Since Kuppammal has passed away, her share will be inherited by her legal heirs (the appellants).8\11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

16. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, and the findings of the First appellate Court are set aside. Both parties are entitled to approach the trial court for a division of the property and to file a final decree application. The trial court is directed to dispose of the application within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, considering that most of the parties are over 60 years of age.17. In view of the above, these Second Appeals are disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. 21.01.2025Index : Yes/NoNeutral Citation : Yes/NoSpeaking/Non Speaking orderrri9\11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis To1. The Subordinate Judge, Gudiyatham.2.The District Munsif, Tirupattur.3.The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court of Madras.10\11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.rriS.A.Nos.715 & 716 of 200421.01.202511\11