Jenova, W/o. Late. Rajkumar vs K. Jesukumar, S/o. Late. Kulandhaisamy

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Mad) 1558

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.VADAMALAI
Jenova, W/o. Late. Rajkumar – Appellant
Versus
K. Jesukumar, S/o. Late. Kulandhaisamy – Respondent

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Mr. T.R. Subramanian.
For the Respondents: Mr. G. Karnan, Mr. D. Senthil.

Table of Content
1. parties and factual background of partition suit. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 6 , 7 , 8)
2. core dispute over settlement deed validity. (Para 9 , 10)
3. appellants argue settlement proved without specific denial. (Para 11 , 12 , 17)
4. precedents support proof of registered deeds. (Para 13)
5. respondents argue failure to prove settlement deed. (Para 14 , 15 , 16)
6. no specific denial; proviso to section 68 applies. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21)
7. certified copy admissible as secondary evidence. (Para 22)
8. settlement deed obstacle requires cancellation for partition. (Para 23 , 24)
9. appeal allowed; trial court decree set aside. (Para 25)

JUDGMENT :

P. VADAMALAI, J.

1.This Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 08.10.2021 passed in O.S.No.37 of 2017 on the file of the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Thanjavur.

2. The appellants are the defendants 5 to 7 in O.S.No.37 of 2017 on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Court, Thanjavur. The first respondent is the plaintiff and the respondents 2 to 8 are the defendants 1 to 4 and 8 to 10 in that suit. The 1st respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for partition seeking 1/7 share in the s