Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(SC) 829

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Sanjay Kumar, Sanjeev Sachdeva, JJ.
Maragadham – Appellant
Versus
Periyaraja and others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 12190 of 2025
Decided On : 29-07-2026

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. V. Raghavachari, Sr. Adv. (N/P) Mr. G. Balaji, AOR Mr. Neeleshwar Parvani, Adv. Ms. Arzu Paul, Adv. Mr. Prasannaa, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. R. Gopalakrishnan, AOR Mr. R. Sudhinder, Adv.

IMPORTANT POINT
Grant of smaller relief – Court can grant a smaller relief than larger relief claimed, if entitlement therefor is made out on facts – Court cannot grant such smaller relief which is entirely alien to her suit claims.

Headnote:
(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order VII Rule 7 – Grant of smaller relief – Order VII Rule 7 CPC authorizes Court to grant a smaller relief than larger relief claimed, if entitlement therefor is made out on facts – However, such discretion would not be available when a plaintiff sets up an altogether different case from one ultimately found established on facts and in law by Court. (Para 12)
(B) Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – Section 15 – Suit seeking declaration of title, recovery of possession and consequential relief – Appeal by unsuccessful plaintiff – Properties having remained joint and without partition by metes and bounds, plaintiff could not have sought relief of recovery of possession of half share – She has right only over an undivided half share suit properties and no more – Without division of property by metes and bounds, question of right of plaintiff crystallising would not arise – However, as she sought declaration of title under registered gift, she would be entitled to such declaration only in respect of an undivided half share in suit properties thereunder – She would necessarily have to seek partition of suit properties by metes and bounds to actually claim her separate half share – Such relief of partition cannot be granted at this stage as same is entirely alien to her suit claims – Plaintiff given liberty to take recourse to such measure by way of appropriate proceedings before competent forum in accordance with law. (Paras 12 and 13)
Facts of the case:
Original Suit No. 697 of 1996 was filed by plaintiff, before District Munsif, seeking declaration of her title; recovery of possession; and consequential reliefs in relation to certain extents of land. Successful before Trial Court, appellant-plaintiff failed in appeal before First Appellate Court and, thereafter, in second appeal before Madras High Court.
Findings of Court:
Judgments and decrees of Courts below, to the extent they hold otherwise, are set aside. Decree to be drawn up accordingly.
Result : Appeal allowed in part.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR, J

1. Successful before the Trial Court, the appellant-plaintiff failed in appeal before the First Appellate Court and, thereafter, in second appeal before the Madras High Court. Ergo, she is before us.

2. Parties shall, hereinafter, be referred to as arrayed in the suit.

3. Original Suit No. 697 of 1996 was filed by Maragadham, the plaintiff, before the District Munsiff, Tirupattur, seeking declaration of her title; recovery of possession; and consequential reliefs in relation to certain extents of land in different survey numbers of Mallapalli Village, Tirupattur Taluk, Vellore District. She asserted title over the suit properties under the registered gift settlement deed, bearing Document No. 871 of 1990, dated 13.12.1990 executed in her favour by her grandfather, Kuttiyappa Goundar, defendant No. 1. She claimed that she was put in possession thereof but was divested of the same by defendant Nos. 1 to 4 in the year 1995. She alleged that defendant Nos. 1 to 4 then inducted Nandimalai, defendant No. 5, into possession to cultivate the suit lands. She asserted that the defendants failed to handover possession of the property to her despite her entreaties and, accordingly, instituted the suit seeking the reliefs as aforestated.

4. Her claims were contested by Periyaraja and Muniammal, defendant Nos. 2 and 3, and their son, Vijayakumar, defendant No.4. Muniammal, defendant No.3, is none other than the daughter of Kuttiyappa Goundar, defendant No.1, through his first wife, Muniyammal. It was her case that her father, defendant No.1, had no rights over the suit properties and, therefore, the gift deed executed by him did not bind her. She also denied that possession was delivered to the plaintiff pursuant to the said gift deed. She asserted that the suit properties belonged to her mother, Muniyammal, by virtue of the sale deed dated 05.01.1949 and the gift settlement deed dated 03.01.1949, executed in her favour by her father, Ammakara Goundar. She stated that her mother died about 20 years prior to the institution of the suit and after her death, the property was in her possession and enjoyment. Kuttiyappa Goundar, defendant No. 1, and Nandimalai, defendant No. 5, did not enter appearance before the Trial Court and were set ex parte.

5. The Trial Court framed nine issues for consideration. The plaintiff examined herself as PW1 and examined her grandfather, Kuttiyappa Goundar, as PW2. Gaundappan, one of the sons of Kuttiyappa Goundar, was examined by her as PW3. Exhibits A1 and A2 were marked by her. Exhibit A1 was a copy of the gift deed dated 13.12.1990 while Exhibit A2 was its original. DWs 1 and 2 were examined by the defendants. Muniammal, defendant No. 3, was examined as DW1. Exhibits B1 to B10 were marked on their behalf in evidence.

6. The Trial Court decreed the suit by its judgment dated 13.04.2006. Therein, opining that the suit properties devolved upon Kuttiyappa Goundar, defendant No. 1, upon the death of his wife, Muniyammal, and became his exclusive properties, the Trial Court held that he, thereupon, had absolute right to gift the same to his granddaughter to the exclusion of his other heirs.

7. Assailing the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, defendant Nos. 2 to 4 filed AS No. 77 of 2006 before the learned Sub Judge, Tirupattur, Vellore District. The First Appellate Court reversed the judgment and decree of the Trial Court by its judgment dated 16.04.2007. The First Appellate Court was of the opinion that, upon the death of Muniyammal, her properties devolved upon her husband, Kuttiyappa Goundar, and her daughter, Muniammal, in equal shares under the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 ¹[ For short, ‘the Act of 1956’], and having only a half share in those properties, Kuttiyappa Goundar did not have the right to execute a gift deed in respect of the entire extent of the suit properties in favour of his granddaughter. The First Appellate Court was, therefore, of the opinion that the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(SC) 829

SUPREME COURT OF INDIASanjay Kumar, Sanjeev Sachdeva, JJ.Maragadham – AppellantVersusPeriyaraja and others – RespondentsCivil Appeal No. 12190 of 2025Decided On : 29-07-2026

IMPORTANT POINTGrant of smaller relief – Court can grant a smaller relief than larger relief claimed, if entitlement therefor is made out on facts – Court cannot grant such smaller relief which is entirely alien to her suit claims.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Sanjay Kumar, Sanjeev Sachdeva, JJ.
Maragadham – Appellant
Versus
Periyaraja and others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 12190 of 2025
Decided On : 29-07-2026

IMPORTANT POINT
Grant of smaller relief – Court can grant a smaller relief than larger relief claimed, if entitlement therefor is made out on facts – Court cannot grant such smaller relief which is entirely alien to her suit claims.