Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Mad) 3992

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R. SAKTHIVEL, J.
Kumara Ravikumar - Appellant
Versus
K. Chandrasekaran @ Durai and Ors. – Respondents
S.A. No.91 Of 2018 AND CMP No.2015 Of 2018
Decided On : 08-01-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. A. Sundaravadhanan.
For the Respondents: Mr. S. Mukund, Senior Counsel for M/s. I.C. Vasudevan.

Land rights must adhere to the terms specified in a Partition Deed, reflecting the historical context and family agreements regarding property ownership and boundaries.

Headnote:(A) Partition Act - Sections and specific provisions regarding life estate - Parties are siblings involved in a dispute over property rights arising from a Partition Deed dated 1983. The court upheld that the plaintiff’s claim over the subject property must be consistent with the boundaries delineated in the Partition Deed. (Paras 12, 14, 16)

(B) Legal entitlement - Clarified rights post-life estate of their mother, entitling the plaintiff to claim properties contiguous to his holdings under specified conditions of the Partition Deed. (Paras 13, 17)

Facts of the case:
The plaintiffs, a husband and wife, claim ownership over 5.19 acres of land based on a Partition Deed, while the defendants challenge this claim citing incorrect property descriptions that include their share. The parties have familial ties and earlier divided ancestral lands. (Paras 3, 4)

Findings of Court:
The trial court reiterated the suit's boundaries per the Partition Deed, dismissing claims of property misidentification, leading to contradictory conclusions in the dismissals of appeals by the defendant. (Paras 6, 16)

Issues: Whether the lower courts correctly adjudicated rights pertaining to property boundaries as per the Partition Deed, especially the omission of the significant cart tracks in the identified decree. (Paras 8, 9)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled the need for demarcation to follow strict adherence to the Partition Deed, declaring that enjoyment of property must align with stipulated allotments, affirming that no separate partition was sought for already defined shares. (Paras 12-17)

Result: Second Appeal partly allowed; preliminary Decree passed, delineating rights and obligations regarding boundary issues as specified in the Partition Deed, with no order as to costs.

Table of Content
1. agreements and possessions concerning ancestral property. (Para 3 , 4)
2. plaintiffs seek declaration over property rights. (Para 5)
3. disputes over property description and rights under partition deed. (Para 9 , 10)
4. analysis of property boundaries and rights under legal documents. (Para 11 , 12 , 14)
5. conclusively addressing the validity of deeds and property distribution. (Para 15 , 16 , 17)
6. final decree on property partition and rights. (Para 18)

JUDGMENT :

(R. SAKTHIVEL, J.)

This Second Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Decree dated October 20, 2017, passed in A.S.No.9 of 2017 by the 'Subordinate Court, Sathyamangalam' ['First Appellate Court' for brevity], whereby the Judgment and Decree dated October 17, 2016 passed in O.S.No.207 of 2013 by the 'District Munsif, Sathyamangalam' ['Trial Court' for brevity] was confirmed.

2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred to as per their array in the Original Suit.

PLAINTIFFS' CASE

3. Brief facts necessary for the disposing of this Second Appeal are as follows:

3.1. The plaintiffs are husband and wife and they have been living in the farm house in the Suit Property. 1^st defendant is the younger brother of the 1^st plaintiff, while 2^nd defendant is his elder sister. The 1^st and 2^nd defendants own lands adjoining the Suit Property.

3.2. The first plaintiff, the defendants 1 and 2 along with their mother and two other brothers divided their ancestral properties by a Registered Partition Deed dated June 18, 1983. Vide the said Partition Deed, first plaintiff was allotted ‘C’ Schedule Properties therein consisting of 4.41 Acres of land in Survey No.314, and the first defendant was allotted ‘D’ Schedule Properties therein, while their mother – Rajammal was given life estate over ‘A’ Schedule Properties therein which consists of 2 Acres of land in R.Survey No.314/3. According to the said Partition Deed, after Rajammal’s lifetime, first plaintiff and first defendant alone are entitled to ½ share each over the said ‘A’ Schedule Properties. Accordingly, post the lifetime of Rajammal, the plaintiff became entitled to 5.41 Acres (4.41 Acres + 1 Acre).

3.3. Even though vide Partition Deed dated June 18, 1983 Rajammal was given life estate over 'A' Schedule property thereunder consisting of two Acre of land, she never took possession of the same. Instead, during the lifetime of Rajammal itself, first plaintiff and first defendant took possession of their respective shares in the said two Acre of land i.e., one Acre each and began enjoying it.

3.4. The first plaintiff has settled in favour of second plaintiff/ his wife, an extent of 30 Cents along with common 1/7 share in well vide registered Settlement Deed dated December 22, 2005.

3.5. Upon measuring the Suit Property, the first plaintiff learnt that he is in possession and enjoyment of only 5.19 Acres instead of 5.41 Acres, after leaving common Cart Track on all sides of his land. The first plaintiff has perfected title from 1983 to an extent of 5.19 Acres along with his wife.

3.6. The defendants obstructed the plaintiffs from harvesting the ripen crop in the Suit Property and threatened them on September 10, 2012.

3.7. Hence, the Suit for declaration of title, permanent injunction, demarcating the Suit Property (5.19 Acres), costs and other reliefs.

DEFENDANTS’ CASE

4. The defendants filed separate written statements denying the plaint averments. Sum and substance of their written statements is that the registered Settlement Deed dated December 22, 2005 is not valid and binding on the defendants for various reasons. The first plaintiff had no right to execute the same when he himself is not aware of the extent under his possession. Further, the mother – Rajammal was alive on the date of Settlement Deed and the first plaintiff was entitled to only 4.41 Acres. Further, the Settlement Deed is in respect of common 30 Cents and hence, the first plaintiff could not have handed over possession to seco