Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Mad) 2181

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P. Dhanabal, J.
J.Perumal Udayar(died) S/o Late Jayarama Udayar, Bommarajapuram - Petitioner
Versus
Rajeswari W/o Rajendran – Respondent
SA Nos. 615 of 2012, 796 OF 2016 & 797 OF 2016 AND CMP.Nos.15072 & 15073 of 2016 & 29125 of 2025
Decided On : 26-02-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. G.Harikrishnan
For the Respondent: Mr.D.Murugan

In partition suits, the onus is on the plaintiff to demonstrate joint ownership of properties claimed, while courts may dismiss claims without adequate supporting evidence.

Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code - Section 100 - Partition suit - The appellants challenged the judgment of the lower appellate court where the plaintiff claimed share in partition of immovable properties. The lower appellate court decreed the suit in respect of 'A' schedule and 'B' schedule properties, while dismissing 'C' schedule. The appellants argued that the properties were self-acquired and not available for partition. The court delineated ownership, concluding that sufficient evidence was absent for several items in the 'B' schedule. The court affirmed the plaintiff's entitlement to share in specific properties but set aside the decree concerning other items. (Paras 14-34)

(B) Partition - Joint Ownership - A suit for partition necessitates proof of joint ownership. The burden rests on the plaintiff to establish entitlement to the claimed share. In absence of sufficient evidence regarding several properties, the appellate decision favoring the plaintiff for all items was overturned. (Para 32)

Table of Content
1. introduction of parties and familial context. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. contentions regarding ownership and partitions. (Para 6 , 7 , 8)
3. first appellate judgment summary. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
4. arguments presented by appellants and respondents. (Para 14 , 15 , 16)
5. court's considerations of evidence and burden. (Para 22 , 23 , 24)
6. court's analysis of property distribution. (Para 32 , 33)
7. conclusion on appeals regarding property shares. (Para 34)
8. final disposition of case. (Para 35)

JUDGMENT :

P. Dhanabal, J.

All the above three Second Appeals are arising out of the suit in OS.No.1477 of 2004.

2. The appellants in all the appeals are the defendants 3 and 5 in the main suit. The 1^st respondent in SA.No.615 of 2012 and SA.No.796 of 2016 and 8^th respondent in SA.No.797 of 2016 has filed a suit in OS.No.1477 of 2004 for the relief of partition of immovable properties claiming ¼ share of the suit properties. The trial court decreed the suit in respect of the ‘A’ schedule properties. Aggrieved by the said Decree and Judgment, the defendants 3 and 5 have preferred the first appeal in AS.No.351 of 2007 and the plaintiff has preferred an appeal in AS.No.494 of 2007, and the defendants 1, 2, 4, 6, 7 and 8 have preferred an appeal in AS.No.496 of 2007. The first appellate court heard the appeals together and passed common judgment by dismissing the appeal filed by the defendants 3 and 5 and partly allowed the appeal filed by the plaintiff in respect of the ‘B’ schedule property and suit is dismissed in respect of ‘C’ schedule property. The appeal in AS.No.496 of 2007 also partly allowed in respect of ‘D’ schedule and the decree and Judgment passed by the trial court was partly set aside and partly confirmed. Aggrieved by the common decree and judgment, the defendants 3 and 5 have preferred all these appeals.

3. The gist of the plaint averments are as follows:-

The suit schedule ‘A’ and ‘B’ properties originally belonged to the plaintiff’s father B.S.Jayaman Udayar and he died in the year January, 1992 intestate leaving behind his Wife, Amsavalli Ammal/1st defendant, daughters/the plaintiffs and defendants 2, 4, 7, 8 and sons, the defendants 3, 5 and 6. The plaintiffs and defendants are the joint owners of the suit ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule properties. The ‘A’ schedule properties are all agricultural lands and ‘B’ schedule properties are under the possession of tenants and some portions of the properties are occupied by the 5^th defendant. The ‘C’ schedule property is the fixed deposit made by the plaintiff’s father in the name of 1^st defendant. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to 1/9th share in the plaint schedule properties. When the plaintiff demanded partition of her share, the defendants refused for the amicable partition. Therefore, the plaintiff caused a notice dated 20.03.2003 and the defendants 1 and 4 issued false reply through reply dated 22.05.2003 and the defendants 3 and 5 have issued reply with false allegations on 05.04.2003. Even after the notice, the defendants failed to partition the properties. Therefore, they filed the suit.

4. The defendants 3 and 5 filed the written statement stating that ‘A’and ‘B’ schedule properties are originally belonged to the plaintiffs and defendant’s grandfather, Chellamuthu Udayar and after his demise, only his son B.S.Jayaraman Udayar inherited and had been in possession and enjoyment of the properties. While So on 17.01.1992, the said B.S.Jayaraman Udayar died leaving behind a Will dated 13.10.1991. The defendants and the plaintiffs are the legal heirs of the B.S.Jayaman Udayar. The plaintiff is not in joint possession and enjoyment of ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule properties. Hence, the suit is barred by limitation.

4.1. The B.S.Jayaraman Udayar left the property situated at Bommarajapuram, Nallathur Village to an extent of 6.74 acres of Nanja and Punja lands and also a house bearing No.27/11, Muniyappa Mudali street, Old Washermanpet, Chennai and bank balance of Rs.3 lakhs.