Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
K.MURALI SHANKAR
Chellamuthu – Appellant
Versus
Karuppannan (died), Natarajan – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
K.MURALI SHANKAR, J.
The Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree made in A.S.No.25 of 2019, dated 25.07.2025, on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Karur, confirming the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.123 of 2007, dated 20.06.2011, on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Karur.
2. The appellant is the plaintiff. He filed a suit in O.S.No.123 of 2007, on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Karur seeking partition and allotment of 1/16th shares in the suit properties. The defendants 1, 2, 4 and 5 filed their written statement and contested the suit.
3. The learned Principal District Munsif, Karur after framing necessary issues and after full trial, passed the judgment and decree dated 20.06.2011, dismissing the suit. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit, the plaintiff filed an appeal in A.S.No.25 of 2018 and the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Karur, upon considering the materials available on record and on hearing the arguments of both sides, passed the impugned judgment and decree dated 25.07.2025 dismissing the appeal and thereby confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court. Challenging the dismissal
The High Court's jurisdiction in a second appeal is limited to substantial questions of law, with no re-appraisal of factual findings made by lower courts; the burden of proof for joint family proper....
The High Court's review under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code is restricted to substantial questions of law, with no interference allowed on factual findings absent error.
The High Court's review under Section 100 CPC is limited to substantial questions of law and does not allow re-evaluation of factual findings made by lower courts.
The right to inherit properties can be lost due to delay in claiming partition, as seen in cases of ouster and adverse possession.
The High Court's jurisdiction in second appeals is limited to substantial questions of law without re-evaluating the evidentiary findings of the trial courts.
The court affirmed that admissions made during trial are binding, and ancestral properties cannot be dismissed based on a registered Partition Deed that does not negate the rights of coparceners.
A second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC can only be admitted if substantial questions of law arise; in this case, no such questions were found.
Unmarried daughters are recognized as coparceners in ancestral properties under the amended Hindu Succession Act, leading to equal rights in joint family assets.
The court upheld the entitlement of the plaintiff's share in ancestral properties and directed the determination of her legal heirs and the validity of her Will before distribution.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
