A.S.No.13 of 2009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 21.03.2023

CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S. SUNDAR

AND

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI

A.S.No.13 of 2009

Shanthalakshmi

... Appellant

Vs.

1.Muthusami Gounder (died)

2.Thangavelu (died)

3.Ponnusamy

4.Ilandirayan (died)

5.Valliammal

6.Kalisamy

7.Palanisamy

8.Krishnaveni

9.Kalaiselvi

10.Krithika

11.Varun Kumar

12.Saraswathi

13.Manivannan

14.Elango

... Respondents

[R9 to R11 are brought on record as LRs of

deceased 1^st and 2^nd respondents, viz., Muthusami

Gounder and Thangavelu, vide order of Court,

dated 24.02.2023 made in C.M.P.Nos.21999,

22001 & 22003 of 2022 in A.S.No.13 of 2009]

Page 1 of 24

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

A.S.No.13 of 2009

[R12 to R14 brought on record as LRs of

deceased 4^th respondent, viz., Ilandirayan,

vide order of Court dated 24.02.203 made

in C.M.P.Nos.21987, 21989 & 21990 of 2022

in A.S.No.13 of 2009]

Prayer : Appeal Suit filed under Section 96 r/w. Order 41 Rule 1 of Code of

Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree dated 25.04.2008 in

O.S.No.364 of 2005 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions

Court, Fast Track Court-3 at Coimbatore.

For Appellant

:

Mr.V.Ravi

For R3, R5 to R7 &

:

Mr.V.P.Sengottuvel

R12 to R14

Senior Counsel

for Ms.K.Indu Priya

For R9 to R11

:

Mr.R.Ramanlal

Senior Counsel

for Mr.V.L.Akshaisajin Kumar

For R8

:

Mr.J.Pothiraj

R1, R2 & R4

:

Died (steps taken)

Page 2 of 24

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

A.S.No.13 of 2009

J U D G M E N T

(Judgment was delivered by S.S. SUNDAR, J.)

The plaintiff in the suit in O.S.No.364 of 2005 on the file of the

Additional District and Sessions Court (Fast Track Court No.III),

Coimbatore, is the appellant in the above appeal.

2.The appellant is the daughter of 1^st respondent, who is the 1^st

defendant in the suit. 2^nd respondent is the brother of appellant and he is the

2^nd defendant in the suit. Defendants 3 to 8 are impleaded as they have

purchased the suit properties from defendants 1 and 2. The plaintiff filed

the suit to declare the decree passed in O.S.No.1070 of 1993 as null and

void and for partition of suit properties into three equal shares and allot one

such share to the plaintiff/appellant.

3.Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents has filed the

Geneology tree and the relationship as found in the Geneology tree is not in

dispute. Sri Kulande Gounder had four sons by name V.K.Palanisamy,

Page 3 of 24

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

A.S.No.13 of 2009

V.K.Muthusamy (1^st defendant), V.K.Arusamy, V.K.Rathinasamy and a

daughter by name T.P.Ponnammal. It is admitted that plaintiff is the

daughter of 1^st defendant and granddaughter of Sri Kulande Gounder.

Similarly, 2^nd defendant is the son of 1^st defendant and grandson of Sri

Kulande Gounder.

4.It is the case of the plaintiff in the plaint that the suit properties are

self-acquired properties of her grandfather Sri Kulande Gounder. Later, the

plaintiff pleaded that Kulande Gounder acquired properties by his own

earnings as well as out of his income derived from the ancestral properties

which he succeeded from his ancestors. It is also stated that the properties

are in the enjoyment of Hindu Undivided Family. It is the case of the

plaintiff/appellant that, after the death of grandfather Sri Kulande Gounder,

there was a partition among the legal heirs of Sri Kulande Gounder and 1^st

defendant got the suit properties to his share and hence, it is stated that the

plaintiff is entitled to a share in the suit properties. It is further stated that

the defendants 1 and 2 colluded together in dividing the properties among

themselves and obtained a decree in O.S.No.1070 of 1993 on the file of

Page 4 of 24

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

A.S.No.13 of 2009

Sub-Court, Coimbatore. It is further contended that the plaintiff was born

in the year 1957, prior to the purchase of suit prope