Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(Mad) 2899

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
P. VELMURUGAN, J.
SP.V.M. Thiyagarajan & Others - Appellant
Versus
R. Prema & Others - Respondent
A.S(MD)Nos. 27, 28 of 2012 & 25 of 2015 & M.P(MD)No. 2 of 2012
Decided On : 17-08-2022

Advocates appeared:
For the Parties:V.R. Shanmuganathan, K. Guhan, M/s. A.L. Ganthimathi, K.K. Ramakrishnan, Advocates, R1, ARL. Sundaresan, Senior Counsel.

The trial Court found the partition suit bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and dismissed it. It also found the appellant not entitled to a share in certain properties and granted permanent injunction in favor of the respondent.

Headnote:
Partition - Code of Civil Procedure - O.S.No.347 of 2004, O.S.No.36 of 2009 - Section 96 - Summary
Fact of the Case:

One SP.V.M.Thiyagarajan filed O.S.No.347 of 2004 seeking partition and separate possession of properties. O.S.No.36 of 2009 was filed by R.Prema for a permanent injunction against interference with her possession of the suit property.
Finding of the Court:

The trial Court dismissed the partition suit in O.S.No.347/2004 and granted permanent injunction in O.S.No.36/2009. The appeals were heard together and disposed of by the common judgment.
Issues: The trial Court framed issues related to entitlement to property shares, possession, and permanent injunction.
Ratio Decidendi: The trial Court found the partition suit bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and dismissed it. It also found the appellant not entitled to a share in certain properties and granted permanent injunction in favor of the respondent.
Final Decision: The appeals were dismissed, and the judgment and decree of the trial Court were upheld, except for a modification in the decree of O.S.No.347/2004 regarding the B schedule properties.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Appeal Suit filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, against the judgment and decree dated 11.08.2011 in O.S.No.347 of 2004 on the file of the Additional District Judge, (FTC No.I), Madurai.

Appeal Suit filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, against the judgment and decree dated 11.08.2011 in O.S.No.36 of 2009 on the file of the Additional District Judge, (FTC No.I), Madurai.

Appeal Suit filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, against the judgment and decree dated 11.08.2011 in O.S.No.347 of 2004 on the file of the Additional District Judge, (FTC No.I), Madurai.)

Common Judgment:

1. One SP.V.M.Thiyagarajan, as a plaintiff, filed O.S.No.347 of 2004, on the file of the Additional District Judge, (FTC No.I), Madurai, against one R.Prema and R.Karthick, who are defendants in the said suit, for the relief of partition and separate possession of A, B and C schedule properties and to give a share to the plaintiff in the business run in D and E schedule properties and also a share in the Fixed Deposit in F schedule property with costs of the suit. O.S.No.36 of 2009 on the file of the Additional District Judge, (FTC No.I), Madurai, was filed by the 1st defendant in the above suit namely, Prema, as a plaintiff, against one SP.V.M.Thiyagarajan/plaintiff in O.S.No.347 of 2004, for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant and his men from interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property therein.

As pleadings and submissions were common, the trial Court conducted a joint trial and by a common judgment and decree, dated 11.08.2011, dismissed the suit for partition in O.S.No.347/2004 with costs and decreed O.S.No.36 of 2009 granting permanent injunction. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the partition suit in O.S.No.347/2004, the plaintiff in the said suit namely, SP.V.M.Thiyagarajan filed appeal in A.S(MD)No. 27/2012. As against the disallowed portions of the counter claim, the defendants in O.S.No.347/2004 filed A.S(MD)No.25/2015. Aggrieved by the decree of permanent injunction granted by the trial Court in O.S.No. 36/2009, the defendant therein namely, SP.V.M.Thiyagarajan field A.S(MD)No.28/2012. As pleadings and submissions are common, all the appeals are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.

2. Brief averments in the plaint in O.S.No.347/2004, are as follows:-

One S.P.V.Manickam Chettiar had two sons namely, plaintiff/SP.V.M.Thiyagarajan and M.Ramakrishnan and four daughters namely, R.M.Valliammal, K.Kamatchi, M.Vijayalakshmi and R.M.Meenatchi @ Chella Meenal. On 15.07.1989, M.Ramakrishnan, one of the sons of Manickam Chettiar died, leaving behind his wife namely, R.Prema and his son R.Karthick who are the defendants, as his legal heirs. Thereafter, the defendants were living with Manickam Chettiar and all their needs were fulfilled by the said Manickam Chettiar. The suit properties were purchased out of the income derived from the ancestral properties of Manickam Chettiar. While so, Manickam Chettiyar died intestate on 26.08.2003 and his wife predeceased him. The defendants were maintained by Manickam Chettiar till his death. During his life time, Manickam Chettiar paid cash to his four daughters to avoid them from claiming share in the suit properties. Manickam Chettiar also paid Rs.2,20,000/- towards educational expenses of the 2nd defendant/grandson. Further, Manickam Chettiar was also doing finance business at Aranthangi in the name and style of Lakshmi Finance and cash in hand of the said business upto 30.06.2003 amounting to Rs.17,75,598/- is in possession of the 1st defendant and the plaintiff is entitled to his half share in the said amount. Manickam Chettiar was also running a finance business in the name and style of Karthick Finance and the cash in hand of the said business upto 30.06.2003 amounting to Rs.16,17,436/- is in possession of the 1st defendant and the plaintiff is entitled to his half share in the said amount. Th