High Court · 2024

S.A.No.1028 of 2013IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 19.02.2024CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANANS.A.No.1028 of 2013andM.P.No.1 of 2013Puttamma .. AppellantVs.1.Venkatamma2.Gowramma3.Krishnappa4.Purushothama Reddy.. Respondents Prayer : This Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, to reverse the decree and judgment in O.S.No.107 of 2002 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Hosur, dated 30.07.2010 as confirmed in A.S.No.5 of 2011, dated 22.12.2011 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Hosur.Page No 1 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.1028 of 2013For Appellant: Mr.K.ChandrasekaranFor Respondents: Mr.N.C.Thirumalai Balaji for R1 to R3: Mr.P.Satheesh Kumar for R4JUDGMENTThe present Second Appeal arises out of the judgment and decree of the Court of the learned Subordinate Judge at Hosur in A.S.No.5 of 2011, dated 22.12.2011 in confirming the judgment and decree of the Court of the District Munsif at Hosur in O.S.No.107 of 2002, dated 30.07.2010.2. There was one Nanjunda Reddy. He had two wives namely Muniamma and Chinna Akkaiah. Through Muniamma, he begot a daughter by name Papamma. Papamma married one Biddappa and from the wedlock, three children were born namely Puttamma, Gowramma and Krishnappa. Puttamma is the plaintiff, Gowramma is the 2nd defendant and Krishnappa is the 3rd defendant. Now, turning to his 2nd wife's branch, Nanjunda Reddy through Chinna Akkaiah begot one daughter by name Venkatamma, who is the 1st defendant.Page No 2 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.1028 of 2013 3. It is the case of the plaintiff that the properties which belong to the family of Nanjunda Reddy were not partitioned and therefore, she presented a suit for partition. This was resisted by the defendants on the ground that the properties were already divided by way of an oral partition in the year 1951 and subsequently, by way of registered partition deed on 28.05.1959 and therefore, the present suit for partition after the expiry of 43 years is not maintainable. 4. Based on these pleadings, the learned Trial Judge has framed the following issues : “1. thjp tHf;Fiuapy; nfhhpa[s;sgo jhth brhj;ij ,uz;L rk ghf';fshfg; gphpj;J mjpy; xu ghfj;ij thjp ghfkhf mila mUfijapilatuh ? 2. thjp tHf;Fiuapy; nfhhpathW Kjy;epiy jPh;g;ghizia mDrhpj;J ,Wjpepiy jPh;g;ghizia bgw mUfija[ilatuh ?3. thjpf;F fpl;Lk; ,ju ghpfhu';fs; vd;d ?”5. On the side of the plaintiff, she examined herself as P.W.1 and produced only the suit notice and a reply there on as Ex.A1 and Ex.A2. Chinna Akkaiah was examined as P.W.2. The 1st defendant/Venkatamma Page No 3 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.1028 of 2013examined herself as D.W.1 and she produced Ex.B1 to Ex.B27. Venkatamma also examined one Rajappa as D.W.2. 6. On the basis of the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Trial Judge came to a conclusion that the property had already been partitioned between Chinna Akkaiah, the 2nd wife of Nanjunda Reddy and Papamma, the mother of the plaintiff by way of a registered document on 28.05.1959 and therefore, dismissed the suit for partition. This suit which had been taken on file as O.S.No.107 of 2002, was dismissed on 30.07.2010. 7. Aggrieved by the same, a regular appeal was preferred before the learned Subordinate Judge at Hosur in A.S.No.5 of 2011. The learned Subordinate Judge at Hosur had dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment and decree of the Court below on 22.12.2011. 8. Aggrieved by these concurrent judgments, the present Second Appeal had been presented before this Court. Page No 4 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.1028 of 20139. The appeal was not admitted but notice regarding admission had been ordered on 21.10.2013. Mr.P.Satheesh Kumar has entered appearance for the 4th respondent and Mr.N.C.Thirumalai Balaji representing Mr.K.Subba Reddy has entered appearance for the respondents 1 to 3. The 4th respondent is the purchaser of the property, pending the litigation. 10. Heard Mr.K.Chandrasekaran, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr.N.C.Thirumalai Balaji for the respondents 1 to 3 and Mr.P.Satheesh Kumar for the 4th respondent. I have carefully perused the records. 11. Mr.K.Chandrasekaran would argue that the defendants have pleaded an oral partition in the year 1951 as well as a registered partition deed in the year 1959 and therefore, the case of the defendant being contradictory requires a rejection and the suit for the partition ought to be decreed. He would submits that the properties had not yet been divided and the relationship between the parties having been admitted, the plaintiff/Puttamma is entitled for the share.Page No 5 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.1028 of 201312. Mr.N.C.Thirumalai Balaji and Mr.P.Satheesh Kumar would argue in unison that they had produced Ex.B1, a certified copy of the partition deed, dated 28.05.1959 and therefore, they would urge that the 2nd suit for partition is not maintainable. They would further add that being a concurrent finding of fact that this Court must not interfere in the appeal. 13. I have carefully considered the arguments on either side.14. A perusal of the record would show that Nanjunda Reddy had married Chinna Akkaiah only after the death of his 1st wife/Muniamma. He had one daughter each through both of his wives, namely Papamma and Venkatamma. Chinna Akkaiah, the step mother and Papamma, the mother of the plaintiff had divided the properties as early as on 28.05.1959. Acting on Ex.B1, the partition document, Papamma, the mother of the plaintiff had gifted the property to the plaintiff's sister/Gowramma. Similarly, pursuant to the partition, a gift deed had been executed in favour of one Rama Reddy, who is the son of Gowramma/2nd defendant and the grandson of Papamma, one of the beneficiaries in the document under Ex.B5 namely, 28.05.1959.Page No 6 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.1028 of 201315. In other words, the partition deed had not only been entered into but each of the family members had acted upon the said document and had passed on title to the other members of the family.16. In the light of the unimpeachable registered documents, I do not find any reason to interfere with the views taken by the Courts below. In fine, the Second Appeal is not admitted. The same is dismissed. 17. The judgment and decree of the Court of the learned Subordinate Judge at Hosur in A.S.No.5 of 2011, dated 22.12.2011 in confirming the judgment and decree of the Court of the District Munsif at Hosur in O.S.No.107 of 2002, dated 30.07.2010 is confirmed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.19.02.2024Index:Yes/No Speaking Order :Yes/NoNeutral Citation:Yes/Nomkn2Page No 7 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.1028 of 2013V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.mkn2To1.The District Munsif Court, Hosur.2.The learned Subordinate Judge, Hosur.S.A.No.1028 of 2013andM.P.No.1 of 201319.02.2024Page No 8 of 8

S.A.No.1028 of 2013IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 19.02.2024CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANANS.A.No.1028 of 2013andM.P.No.1 of 2013Puttamma .. AppellantVs.1.Venkatamma2.Gowramma3.Krishnappa4.Purushothama Reddy.. Respondents Prayer : This Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, to reverse the decree and judgment in O.S.No.107 of 2002 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Hosur, dated 30.07.2010 as confirmed in A.S.No.5 of 2011, dated 22.12.2011 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Hosur.Page No 1 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.1028 of 2013For Appellant: Mr.K.ChandrasekaranFor Respondents: Mr.N.C.Thirumalai Balaji for R1 to R3: Mr.P.Satheesh Kumar for R4JUDGMENTThe present Second Appeal arises out of the judgment and decree of the Court of the learned Subordinate Judge at Hosur in A.S.No.5 of 2011, dated 22.12.2011 in confirming the judgment and decree of the Court of the District Munsif at Hosur in O.S.No.107 of 2002, dated 30.07.2010.2. There was one Nanjunda Reddy. He had two wives namely Muniamma and Chinna Akkaiah. Through Muniamma, he begot a daughter by name Papamma. Papamma married one Biddappa and from the wedlock, three children were born namely Puttamma, Gowramma and Krishnappa. Puttamma is the plaintiff, Gowramma is the 2nd defendant and Krishnappa is the 3rd defendant. Now, turning to his 2nd wife's branch, Nanjunda Reddy through Chinna Akkaiah begot one daughter by name Venkatamma, who is the 1st defendant.Page No 2 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.1028 of 2013 3. It is the case of the plaintiff that the properties which belong to the family of Nanjunda Reddy were not partitioned and therefore, she presented a suit for partition. This was resisted by the defendants on the ground that the properties were already divided by way of an oral partition in the year 1951 and subsequently, by way of registered partition deed on 28.05.1959 and therefore, the present suit for partition after the expiry of 43 years is not maintainable. 4. Based on these pleadings, the learned Trial Judge has framed the following issues : “1. thjp tHf;Fiuapy; nfhhpa[s;sgo jhth brhj;ij ,uz;L rk ghf';fshfg; gphpj;J mjpy; xu ghfj;ij thjp ghfkhf mila mUfijapilatuh ? 2. thjp tHf;Fiuapy; nfhhpathW Kjy;epiy jPh;g;ghizia mDrhpj;J ,Wjpepiy jPh;g;ghizia bgw mUfija[ilatuh ?3. thjpf;F fpl;Lk; ,ju ghpfhu';fs; vd;d ?”5. On the side of the plaintiff, she examined herself as P.W.1 and produced only the suit notice and a reply there on as Ex.A1 and Ex.A2. Chinna Akkaiah was examined as P.W.2. The 1st defendant/Venkatamma Page No 3 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.1028 of 2013examined herself as D.W.1 and she produced Ex.B1 to Ex.B27. Venkatamma also examined one Rajappa as D.W.2. 6. On the basis of the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Trial Judge came to a conclusion that the property had already been partitioned between Chinna Akkaiah, the 2nd wife of Nanjunda Reddy and Papamma, the mother of the plaintiff by way of a registered document on 28.05.1959 and therefore, dismissed the suit for partition. This suit which had been taken on file as O.S.No.107 of 2002, was dismissed on 30.07.2010. 7. Aggrieved by the same, a regular appeal was preferred before the learned Subordinate Judge at Hosur in A.S.No.5 of 2011. The learned Subordinate Judge at Hosur had dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment and decree of the Court below on 22.12.2011. 8. Aggrieved by these concurrent judgments, the present Second Appeal had been presented before this Court. Page No 4 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.1028 of 20139. The appeal was not admitted but notice regarding admission had been ordered on 21.10.2013. Mr.P.Satheesh Kumar has entered appearance for the 4th respondent and Mr.N.C.Thirumalai Balaji representing Mr.K.Subba Reddy has entered appearance for the respondents 1 to 3. The 4th respondent is the purchaser of the property, pending the litigation. 10. Heard Mr.K.Chandrasekaran, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr.N.C.Thirumalai Balaji for the respondents 1 to 3 and Mr.P.Satheesh Kumar for the 4th respondent. I have carefully perused the records. 11. Mr.K.Chandrasekaran would argue that the defendants have pleaded an oral partition in the year 1951 as well as a registered partition deed in the year 1959 and therefore, the case of the defendant being contradictory requires a rejection and the suit for the partition ought to be decreed. He would submits that the properties had not yet been divided and the relationship between the parties having been admitted, the plaintiff/Puttamma is entitled for the share.Page No 5 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.1028 of 201312. Mr.N.C.Thirumalai Balaji and Mr.P.Satheesh Kumar would argue in unison that they had produced Ex.B1, a certified copy of the partition deed, dated 28.05.1959 and therefore, they would urge that the 2nd suit for partition is not maintainable. They would further add that being a concurrent finding of fact that this Court must not interfere in the appeal. 13. I have carefully considered the arguments on either side.14. A perusal of the record would show that Nanjunda Reddy had married Chinna Akkaiah only after the death of his 1st wife/Muniamma. He had one daughter each through both of his wives, namely Papamma and Venkatamma. Chinna Akkaiah, the step mother and Papamma, the mother of the plaintiff had divided the properties as early as on 28.05.1959. Acting on Ex.B1, the partition document, Papamma, the mother of the plaintiff had gifted the property to the plaintiff's sister/Gowramma. Similarly, pursuant to the partition, a gift deed had been executed in favour of one Rama Reddy, who is the son of Gowramma/2nd defendant and the grandson of Papamma, one of the beneficiaries in the document under Ex.B5 namely, 28.05.1959.Page No 6 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.1028 of 201315. In other words, the partition deed had not only been entered into but each of the family members had acted upon the said document and had passed on title to the other members of the family.16. In the light of the unimpeachable registered documents, I do not find any reason to interfere with the views taken by the Courts below. In fine, the Second Appeal is not admitted. The same is dismissed. 17. The judgment and decree of the Court of the learned Subordinate Judge at Hosur in A.S.No.5 of 2011, dated 22.12.2011 in confirming the judgment and decree of the Court of the District Munsif at Hosur in O.S.No.107 of 2002, dated 30.07.2010 is confirmed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.19.02.2024Index:Yes/No Speaking Order :Yes/NoNeutral Citation:Yes/Nomkn2Page No 7 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.1028 of 2013V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.mkn2To1.The District Munsif Court, Hosur.2.The learned Subordinate Judge, Hosur.S.A.No.1028 of 2013andM.P.No.1 of 201319.02.2024Page No 8 of 8