Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Mad) 827

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
P. VADAMALAI, J.
E. Jayachandran - Appellant
Versus
E.Veldhurai – Respondent
S.A(MD)No.81 of 2020, C.M.P(MD)No.1138 of 2020
Decided On : 08-01-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr.R.Manimaran
For the Respondent: Mr.M.S.Jeya Karthick

In property disputes, properties obtained through partition are considered self-acquired, affirming the right of absolute ownership and the validity of subsequent transfers unless proven otherwise.

Headnote:(A) Hindu Succession Act - Rights in ancestral property - Second Appeal under Section 100 CPC - Plaintiff sought partition of ancestral properties of late Arunachalam Nadar - Courts held properties were self-acquired by the 1st defendant as they were allegedly orally partitioned prior to plaintiff's birth - Validity of settlement deed executed by the 1st defendant upheld - Plaintiff failed to prove his claim or establish timing of oral partition. (Paras 12, 21, 24)

(B) Partition - Nature of property - It was ruled that properties acquired through partition become absolute properties of the recipient, thus allowing for independent transactions. (Paras 22, 24)

Facts of the case:
The plaintiff filed suit seeking partition and permanent injunction over properties claimed as ancestral, contesting the validity of a settlement deed executed by his father to the 3rd defendant. The suit was dismissed by both trial and first appellate courts confirming the 1st defendant's ownership based on alleged oral partition prior to the plaintiff's birth.

Findings of Court:
Both courts found the properties to be absolute properties of the 1st defendant based on oral partition, dismissing claims from the plaintiff for partition rights. The conclusion was reinforced by a lack of evidence regarding ancestral property claims.

Issues: The core issues were the nature of the properties as either ancestral or self-acquired, and the validity of the settlement deed executed by the 1st defendant.

Ratio Decidendi: The courts ruled that properties received after a legal partition are regarded as self-acquired by the recipient, affirming the validity of transactions made by absolute owners, which cannot be claimed by descendants unless clearly established. Proper legal documentation and evidence are required to assert claim over properties.

Result: Second Appeal dismissed; judgment and decree upheld.

Table of Content
1. establishes the factual background of the property dispute. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. court's observation on ownership and rights after partition. (Para 9 , 11 , 12 , 21 , 23)
3. outlines the respective legal arguments of the parties. (Para 10 , 14 , 15 , 18)
4. affirms individual ownership and rights post-partition. (Para 22)
5. dismisses the appeal and confirms lower court decisions. (Para 25)

JUDGMENT :

P. VADAMALAI, J.

This Second Appeal is filed against the judgment and decree, dated 23.01.2019 passed in A.S.No.130 of 2017 on the file of the Sub Court, Tiruchendur by confirming the judgment and decree, dated 12.02.2013 passed in O.S.No.90 of 2008 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Sathankulam.

2. The appellant is the plaintiff in O.S.No.90 of 2008 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Sathankulam. The respondents are the defendants in that suit.

3. The appellant/plaintiff filed the suit for partition and permanent injunction in respect of the suit properties.

4. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred as plaintiff and defendants as arrayed in O.S.No.90 of 2008 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Sathankulam.

5. Case of the plaintiff:

The 1^st defendant/Essakkimuthu Nadar, is the father of the plaintiff and the defendants 2 and 3. The suit properties are ancestral properties of Arunachala Nadar, who is the father of the 1^st defendant. Arunachala Nadar died several years back, leaving 1st defendant and the other two legal heirs. Some other properties were given to the said other two legal heirs by Arunachala Nadar. The plaintiff and the defendants derived the suit properties and enjoyed the same as joint family properties. The 1^st defendant had four daughters, Kattithangam, Arumugakani, Kasithangam and Jeyarani and they had executed release deed in respect of their shares. Rajakili Ammal, who was the wife of the 1^st defendant and the mother of plaintiff and defendants 2 and 3 was died 20 years back. The plaintiff developed the suit properties by spending his own money and has been cultivating the properties. Whileso, the defendants 1 and 3 attempted to sell the suit properties as if the suit properties are their absolute properties. The plaintiff came to know that the 1^st defendant executed a settlement deed, dated 14.10.2008, in favour of the 3rd defendant in respect of the suit properties, suppressing the plaintiff’s share over the suit properties. So, the said settlement deed is not a valid one. Hence, the plaintiff has filed the suit seeking for ¼ share in the suit properties and to declare the settlement deed, dated 14.10.2008 as null and void.

6. Case of the Defendants (as per Written Statement and Additional Written Statement)

The suit properties originally belonged to Arunachalam Nadar. He died intestate in the year 1958. The suit properties devolved upon his sons, namely the 1st defendant and other two legal heirs. After demise of Arunachalam Nadar, the 1st defendant and his two legal heirs orally partitioned the properties. The 1st defendant became the absolute owner of the suit properties and his name was mutated in the revenue records. The 1^st defendant dig well in the suit properties and got electricity connection in his name. The 1^st defendant obtained mortgage loan from the Agricultural Cooperative Bank, Chokkankudiyiruppu and the loan was utilized for the development of the scheduled properties. Due to love and affection towards the 3^rd defendant, the 1^st defendant executed settlement deed, dated 14.10.2008, in favour of the 3^rd defendant. From the date of settlement, the 3rd defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. The plaintiff knew well about the settlement deed even prior to the legal notice, dated 24.11.2008.Since the prayer for amendment to declare the settlement deed as void is made after three years, the same is barred by limitation. So, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

7. The trial Court/District Munsif Court, Sathankulam, framed the