Back
2025 Supreme(Mad) 5287
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P. Dhanabal, J.
P.Ramakrishan - Appellant
Versus
Ramachandran (Deceased) - Respondents
S.A.No.751 of 2015
Decided On : 19-12-2025
For the Appellant : Mr.RA.Gopinath
For the Respondent: Mr.K.P.P.Raja Raja Chozhan, Mr.C.Prabakaran
In partition suits, failing to include all legal heirs as parties renders the suit non-viable, and courts must provide an opportunity for necessary parties to be impleaded.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 103 - Partition suit - Decree and judgment set aside by the first appellate court on grounds of non-joinder of necessary parties - Substantial question of law not framed by the second appeal court. (Paras 10, 13, 14)
(B) Non-joinder - First appellate court arrived at conclusion of non-joinder without granting an opportunity to the parties for evidence or arguments. (Paras 11, 14)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff, a son of deceased Perumal, filed for partition of joint family properties against defendants, who contended an oral partition had been made, excluding the plaintiff. The trial court decreed the suit, which was overturned by the first appellate court on grounds of necessary parties not included.
Findings of Court:
The court noted the necessity to include all legal heirs and ruled to remand the case back to the trial court to enable impleading of all necessary parties.
Issues: Whether the suit for partition was maintainable without the inclusion of all legal heirs of the deceased.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the failure to allow a party to adduce evidence on non-joinder is contrary to law, and it is essential to allow all legal heirs an opportunity to be heard in such cases.
Result: Decree and judgment by the first appellate court set aside and matter remitted to the Trial Court for fresh consideration.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of the case and parties involved. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. defendant's statements and issues framed in court. (Para 3 , 4 , 6) |
| 3. arguments regarding non-joinder of necessary parties. (Para 8 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. court's findings on procedural issues and need for remand. (Para 13 , 14) |
| 5. concluding directive to remand the case. (Para 15 , 16) |
JUDGMENT :
P. Dhanabal, J.
The second appeal has been preferred as against the decree and judgment dated 27.11.2009 passed by the II Additional Subordinate Court, Salem in A.S.No.136 of 2008, wherein the respondents herein have preferred the appeal as against the decree and judgment dated 18.02.2008 passed in O.S.No.846 of 2003, on the file of the I Additional District Munsif Court, Namakkal. The said appeal was allowed by setting aside the decree and judgment passed by the Trial Court. Aggrieved over the same, the present second appeal has been preferred.
2. The case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court is that the plaintiff and the defendants 1 and 2 are sons of late Perumal. During the pendency of the suit, the first defendant died and his legal heirs defendants 3 to 6 were impleaded as parties to the suit. Originally the suit properties are ancestral joint family properties of the plaintiff and the defendants. The father of the plaintiff and the defendants 1 to 3 have purchased the suit properties through a registered sale deed dated 19.12.1949. The said Perumal died on 17.12.1966. He was working as Warden in the Central Prison, Salem and after his death, his wife Sankarayammal received death benefits and she was also allotted some other properties and hence she relinquished her share in the suit properties. The daughters of Perumal were also married with all Srithanas and well settled and they also relinquished their shares in the suit properties. Therefore, the plaintiff and the defendants 1 and 2 are in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit properties in which the plaintiff and the defendants 1 and 2 each are entitled to 1/3rd share over the suit properties. When the plaintiff demanded for partition, the defendants refused for the same and therefore, filed the suit. Further the defendants are attempting to construct the entire suit properties including the plaintiff's share. Therefore, filed the suit.
3. The brief averments of the written statement filed by the second defendant are as follows :
The relationship between the parties are admitted. It is false to state that the suit properties are ancestral joint family properties. It is true that the wife of Perumal, as a nominee, received the death benefits of the father of the plaintiff and the defendants 1 and 2. After the demise of the father of the plaintiff and the defendants 1 and 2, they entered into oral partition and for each members, separate shares have been allotted. As per the oral partition, the mother of the plaintiff and the defendants 1 and 2, Sankarayammal received the pension from the Government department and she is living separately. It is false to state that some other properties were already allotted to Sankarayammal and she is relinquished her share over the suit properties and also it is false to state that the daughters of the Perumal relinquished their rights over the suit properties. As per the oral partition, the second defendant constructed terraced two shops in his portion and residing in a terraced house behind the said shops. Already the properties were divided into three equal shares and the boundaries were fixed, the plaintiff and the defendants were in possession and enjoyment in their respective shares separately. When the first defendant recently erected bore-well on his share, there was a misunderstanding between the plaintiff and the defendants. Therefore, the plaintiff filed the suit. There was no demand on partition by the plaintiff and the plaintiff is not entitled to any reliefs through the suit. Therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed.
4. Based on the above said pleadings
