Back
2025 Supreme(Mad) 3641
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. Sathish Kumar, J.
M.M.D.Abirami Lingeswari, W/o. K.V.Karthik - Appellant
Versus
P.Muthu Kannabiran, S/o. M.Palanisamy Gounder and ors. – Respondents
AS No. 129 of 2022 & CMP. No.4801 of 2022
Decided On : 19-02-2025
Important Points
Subject
Civil Law - Property Law
Act Referred
Headnote
(B) Ancestral Property - The character of property as ancestral must be determined based on evidence, and the trial Court erred in rejecting the plaint without considering the plaintiff's claims and supporting documents. (Paras 11-12)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for partition and declarations regarding various settlement deeds, asserting her share in ancestral properties. The trial Court rejected the plaint, leading to the present appeal.
Findings of Court:
The rejection of the plaint was set aside, and the trial Court was directed to proceed with the suit.
Issues: Whether the plaint disclosed a cause of action to maintain the suit?
Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that the trial Court must examine the plaint's averments and supporting documents to determine if a cause of action exists, rather than relying solely on the defendant's assertions.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr.V.Raghavachari, Senior Counsel for Mrs.V.Srimathi
For the Respondent: Mr.P.R.Ramakrishnan, Mr.S. Mukunth, Senior Counsel assisted by Mr.N.Krishnakumar for M/s.Sarvabhuman Associates, Mr.K.Moorthy
ORDER :
N. Sathish Kumar, J.
This Appeal Suit has been filed against the judgement and decree in I.A.No.1083 of 2018 in O.S.No.9 of 2018 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Tiruppur, dated 05.01.2022.
2.Aggrieved over the order of the Court below, in rejecting the plaint, the present Appeal has been filed.
3.The facts, which are necessary for disposal of the Appeal, are stated as under:
The appellant herein is the plaintiff. She moved a suit in O.S.No.9 of 2018 before the II Addl. District Judge, Tiruppur, for the following reliefs, viz.,
“A) To divide the suit properties described hereunder into three equal shares and to allot of one such share to the plaintiff with respect to good and bad soil by metes and bounds by appointing a commissioner;
B) To declared that the alleged settlement deed Document No (3995/1987 dated 30.11.1987) executed by the 1st defendant to in favour of the 2nd defendant is null and void and it will not binding again the plaintiff;
C) To declared that the alleged settlement deed Document No. 51/1988 dated 11.01.1988 executed by 1st defendant to in favour of 2 defendant is null and void and it will not binding against the plaintiff;
D) To declared that the settlement deed Document No. 1930/1998 dated 18.12.1998 executed by 1st defendant to in favour of 2nd defendant is null and void and it will not binding against the plaintiff;
E) To declared that the settlement deed Document No.3443/2008 dated 11.08.2008 executed by 1st defendant to in favour of the plaintiff is null and void and it will not binding against the plaintiff;
F) To declared that the settlement deed Document No. 3636/2008 dated 21.08.2008 executed by 2nd defendant to in favour of the plaintiff is null and void and it will not binding against the plaintiff;
G) To declared that the settlement deed Document No. 321/2008 dated 28.01.2008 executed by 1st defendant to in favour of the 3rd defendant is null and void and it will not be binding against the plaintiff;
H) To declared that the settlement deed Document No.3433/2011 dated 29.09.2011 executed by 3rd defendant to in favour of the 2nd defendant is null and void and it will not binding against the plaintiff;
I) To declared that the Rectification deed Document No. 3625/2016 dated 18.07.2016 executed by 3rd defendant to in favour of the 2nd defendant is null and void and it will not binding against the plaintiff;
J) To declared that the settlement deed Document No. 320/2008 dated 28.01.2008 executed by 1st defendant to in favour of the plaintiff is null and void and it will not binding against the plaintiff;
K) To declared that the settlement deed Document No. 3434/2011 dated 29/09/2011 executed by plaintiff to in favour of the 2nd defendant is null and void and it will not binding against the plaintiff;
L) To declared that the settlement deed Document No. 1146/1985 dated 14.06.1985 executed by 1st defendant to in favour of the 2nd defendant is null and void and it will not binding against the plaintiff.
M) To declared that the settlement deed Document No. 2552/1985 dated 14.11.1985, executed by 1st defendant to in favour of the 2nd defendant is null and void and it will not binding against the plaintiff;
N) To declared that the settlement deed Document No. 2553/1985 dated 14.11.1985 executed by 1st defendant to in favour of the 2nd defendant is null and void and it will not binding against the plaintiff.
O) To declared that the settlement deed Document No. 2443/1987 dated 31.07.1987 executed by 1st defendant to in favour of the 2nd defendant is null and void and it will not binding against the plaintiff.
P) To declared that the settlement deed Document No. 2217/2013 dated 28.06.2013 executed by 2nd defendant to in favour of the 3rd defendant is null and void and it will not binding against the plaintiff;
Q) To declared that the settlement deed Document No. 2666/1987 dated 21.08.1987 executed by 1st defendant to in favour of the 2nd defendant is null and void and it will not binding against the plainti
