Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Mad) 1767

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S. SOUNTHAR, J.
T. Vanajakshi – Appellant
Versus
M. Jayanthi – Respondent
S.A.No.162 of 2020 and C.M.P.No.3431 of 2020
Decided On : 26-03-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. S. Namasivayam
For the Respondents: Mr. K.S. Ananthakrishnan.

Life estate holder entitled to property access; abandonment requires adverse possession proof; no new pleas at appellate stage.

Headnote:The suit property devolved upon plaintiff, her son, and daughter following intestate death of her husband. A family settlement (Ex.A1) allotted ground floor to plaintiff for life estate with vested remainder to son, first floor to son. Defendants prevented plaintiff's access to ground floor, prompting suit for mandatory and permanent injunctions. Trial Court decreed suit; First Appellate Court reversed, finding no cause of action. High Court restored mandatory injunction for access, holding plaintiff entitled as life estate holder. Substantial question: Whether First Appellate Court justified in refusing mandatory injunction given Ex.A1 terms. Ratio: Ex.A1 unequivocally grants plaintiff life interest in ground floor; defendants cannot prevent access. Strained relations and written statement admissions establish prevention and cause of action. Abandonment not proven absent adverse possession plea; no easement rights without pleading/proof. Second Appeal partly allowed; Trial Court's Clause-I decree restored for ground floor access. Other prayers dismissed for lack of evidence; no costs.

Table of Content
1. facts of family settlement and property dispute (Para 2 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 14)
2. life estate rights and cause of action established (Para 11 , 15 , 16 , 17)
3. parties' arguments on access and abandonment (Para 12 , 13)
4. no abandonment or easement without proof (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)
5. appeal partly allowed, decree restored (Para 23 , 24 , 25)

JUDGMENT :

S. SOUNTHAR, J.

The unsuccessful plaintiff in the suit is the appellant.

2. The plaintiff filed a suit seeking mandatory injunction directing the respondents 1 and 2/defendants 1 and 2 to permit her to enter ground floor of the suit property and also for permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 and 2 from carrying out any construction in the suit property without her consent. She also sought for mandatory injunction directing the 4^th respondent/Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, to demolish the construction already made without written consent of the plaintiff.

3. The suit was decreed by the Trial Court as prayed for. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants 1 and 2 in the suit filed an appeal. The First Appellate Court reversed the findings of the Trial Court and dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has come before this Court.

4. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking in the suit.

5. The plaintiff is the mother-in-law of the 1^st defendant. The 3^rd defendant is the son of the plaintiff, the 1^st defendant is the wife of the 3^rd defendant and 2^nd defendant is the son of the 3^rd defendant. The death of 3^rd respondent/3^rd defendant was recorded by First Appellate Court. The appellant and respondents 2 and 3 have been recorded as his legal representatives even before First Appellate Court as seen from impugned decree. According to the plaintiff, the suit property originally belonged to her husband-A.M.Thirunavukkarasu, who died intestate on 25.02.1985. After his death, the property devolved on plaintiff, 3^rd defendant and her daughter-Ameetha Umashankar. On 22.01.1987, there was a Family Settlement involving all the above three persons. The ground floor of the suit property was allotted to plaintiff’s share for life estate with vested remainder to 3^rd defendant. The first floor of the suit property was allotted to the 3^rd defendant. It was made clear in the family arrangement that after death of plaintiff, the ground floor would vest with the 3^rd defendant.

6. It is further case of the plaintiff that the 3^rd defendant married the 1^st defendant in the year 1987 and the 2^nd defendant was born in the year 1989. The 1^st defendant forced out the plaintiff from the suit property in the year 1995 and since then, she has been residing elsewhere. It is the further case of the plaintiff that whenever she visited the ground floor, it was seriously objected by the 1^st defendant. Around January 2011, in order to prevent the access of the plaintiff to ground floor, the defendants 1 and 2 raised the height of the compound wall and started illegal construction in the suit property without getting permission of the plaintiff, who is a co-owner of the suit property. Since the defendants 1 and 2 objected the plaintiff entering the ground floor of the suit property, she was constrained to file the above suit seeking reliefs mentioned above.

7. The suit was resisted by the defendants 1 and 2 by filing written statement. It is the case of the respondents 1 and 2/defendants 1 and 2 that plaintiff left the ground floor of the suit property in the year 1995 on her own volition and residing elsewhere. It is further stated that there is no illegal construction by the defendants 1 and 2 in the suit property and the car shed which had become dilapidated, required immediate attention and there was no illegal construction. It was also stated that the plaintiff instigated her son-3^rd defendant to harass the 1^st defendant and hence, the 1^st defendant filed a case against the plaintiff, her daughter and 3^rd defendant un