SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Mad) 5555

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G.JAYACHANDRAN, MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR, JJ.
Valliammal, S/o Late K.Krishnasamy Gounder, D/o Late Sellappa Gounder - Appellant 
Versus
N.Lakshmi, W/o Late S.K.Natarajan, Behind Elementary School, Vijayapuram, Kangayam Road - Respondent 
Appeal Suit No.814 of 2009, C.M.P.No.1480 of 2020
Decided On : 28-10-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Mr. S.Parthasarathy, Mr.V.Anandhamoorthy
For the Respondents: Mr.M.S.Krishnan, Mr.Ananda Gomathy, Mr.J.Antony Jesus

The right of redemption in usufructuary mortgages is not extinguished by time alone; however, failure to redeem within the stipulated period limits the mortgagor's rights, impacting partition claims.

Headnote:(A) Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 62 - Limitation Act, 1963 - The appeal challenged the dismissal of a partition suit involving a usufructuary mortgage claim. The trial court found that the plaintiffs failed to establish their claim or joint possession, resulting in a valid dismissal. (Paras 20, 30, 32)

(B) Usufructuary Mortgages - The court reaffirmed that the right of redemption in usufructuary mortgages is not extinguished merely by the lapse of time; however, failure to redeem within the stipulated time limits the mortgagor's rights substantially. (Paras 30)

Facts of the case:
The plaintiffs, claiming partition, asserted rights over land originally part of a deceased ancestor's estate, while defendants claimed ownership through a prior usufructuary mortgage and subsequent acts of possession. (Para 20)

Findings of Court:
The court held that the plaintiffs lost their claim due to failure to redeem the mortgage and established that the defendants possessed exclusive ownership rights based on the evidence presented. (Paras 32)

Issues: 1) Entitlement to partition claim of plaintiffs. 2) Validity of the alleged Will related to property. (Paras 18, 26)

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the plaintiffs, having failed to redeem the property within the prescribed time, could not claim joint possession or a right to partition, affirming that possession by one co-owner defeats claims of others unless explicitly established. (Paras 30, 32)

Result: Appeal dismissed with costs. (Para 33)

Table of Content
1. lawsuit relates to property inherited from nalli gounder. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
2. contentions regarding the mortgage and claims of the parties. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
3. trial court dismissed the claim for lack of proof. (Para 20 , 21)
4. arguments on jurisprudence of partition suits and mortgage rights. (Para 22 , 23 , 24)
5. distinction in rights regarding usufructuary mortgage clarified. (Para 30 , 31)
6. appellants' claims dismissed, trial court judgment confirmed. (Para 32 , 33)

JUDGMENT :

G.Jayachandran, J.

Judgment and decree dated 17.12.2008 passed in O.S.No.401 of 2005 challenged by the plaintiffs, on being aggrieved by its dismissal.

2. Gist of the plaint is as follows:-

Thiru.Nalli Gounder (late) had a vast extent of land including the suit property. On his death, the property devolved on his four sons namely Subbia Gounder, Palani Gounder, Arumuga Gounder and Vinayaga Gounder. On 01.03.1918, they entered into a partition deed in respect of the property left by their father, Nalli Gounder and got registered. Under the deed of partition, for their convenient sake, they divided the properties into “A” schedule and “B” schedule. The “A” Schedule consisting of 49.27 acres, jointly allotted to Subbia Gounder and Vinayaga Gounder. The “B” schedule consisting of 50.89 acres jointly allotted to Palani Gounder and Arumuga Gounder.

3. The “A” schedule consists of 28.09 acres of dry land and 21.18 acres of garden lands. Subbia Gounder and his sons sold away their half share in 21.18 acres of garden land and enjoying the ½ share in 28.09 acres of dry land. After the death of Subbia Gounder in the year 1938, the property devolved on the five sons of Subbia Gounder, who were in joint enjoyment of the half share in 28.09 acres of dry land and sharing the income. The dispute is in respect of ½ share in the dry land measuring 28.09 acres.

4. The further case of the plaintiffs is that, the suit property was administered by Subbia Gounder and his eldest son Sennimalai Gounder. His other two sons, by name, N.S.Kandasamy Gounder and N.S.Eswaramuthy Gounder, were carrying on tobacco business independently and contributing fund periodically for its improvement and sharing the income derived from the property. Yet, another son by name Sellappa Gounder is living in the nearby village used to frequently visit the property.

5. Subbia Gounder in the year 1938 leaving his five sons. His elder son Sennimalai Gounder died on 09.09.1974, leaving behind a son by name Kandasamy and two daughters. Kandasamy had four daughters and two sons. The first daughter of Sennimalai Gounder died unmarried. The Second daughter died leaving behind one son by name S.K.Natarajan. The said S.K.Natarajan was married to Lakshmi, the daughter of his maternal uncle Kandasamy, later, he died issueless leaving his widow Lakshmi as his sole legal heir.

6. Sellappan, the second son of Subbia Gounder, died on 27.08.1982 leaving behind three daughters and three sons.

7. N.S Kandasamy Gounder, the third son of Subbia Gounder died on 19.05.1975, leaving behind his wife, three sons and six daughters, N.S.Ramasamy, the fourth son of Subbia Gounder died on 18.11.1974, leaving behind his wife, five daughters and one son by name Jegannathan. His wife and son died later. His son died bachelor.

8. N.S.Eswaramurthy, the last son of Subbia Gounder, died on 11.10.1993 leaving behind his wife, four sons and five daughters.

9. According to the plaintiffs, Kandasamy, S/o Sennimalai Gounder died in the year 1988, till his death he along with his paternal uncle N.S.Eswaramurthy and the legal heirs of the other three sons of Subbia Gounder were jointly enjoying the suit property. Thus, each of the 5 branches of Subbia Gounder are entitled for 1/5th share in the suit property. When they sought for division of the suit property, the legal heirs of Kandasamy constituting one branch among the 5 branches, started claiming exclusive right are not ready for partition. Therefo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top