A.S.No.1018 of 2012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Judgment Reserved On : 02.06.2023

Judgment Delivered On : 16.06.2023

CORAM :

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY

A.S.No.1018 of 2012

1.G.Murali

2.G.Ramesh

... Appellants

Versus

1.Gurumurthy

2.Venkatammal

3.Lakshmi

4.Chinna Lakshmi

5.Ellamma

6.Muniamma

7.Venkatesappa

8.Gopalappa

... Respondents

Prayer : Appeal Suit is filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil

Procedure, 1908, against the Judgment and Decree of the learned

Additional District Judge of Krishnagiri, dated 29.02.2012 in O.S.No.62 of

2008.

For Appellants

: Mr.V. Nicholas

Assisted by Mr.N.E.A.Dinesh

For Respondents

: Mr.N.V.Prakash (for R7)

: No Appearance (for R1, R2, R4 & R5)

: Steps due (R3, R6 & R8)

1/14

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

A.S.No.1018 of 2012

JUDGMENT

A. The Appeal Suit :

The plaintiffs are the appellants before this Court. The plaintiffs

filed the suit for partition praying for division of the suit properties into 36

equal shares and to allot 14/36 shares to the plaintiffs and to pass a final

decree in terms of a preliminary decree and further to declare the sale

deeds dated 17.07.1997 and 16.10.1997 executed by the first defendant in

favour of the 7^th & 8^th defendant as null and void and also prayed for

injunction against the 1^st, 7^th & 8^th defendants in respect of the suit

properties. The parties to the suit admitted the relationship between them

and the following is the admitted genealogy:

|¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯|¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯|¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯|

Gurrappa Mekalappa Gundappa

Lineman Gurrappa

(Died in 1998)

|

|¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯|

1st Wife Lakshmamma

2nd Wife Muniyamma (D6)

|

|

Venkatamma (D2)

|

|¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯|¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯|¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯|

Gurumurthy Lakshmi Chinnalakshmi Ellamma

(D1)

(D3)

(D4)

(D5)

|

|¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯|

Murali

Ramesh

(P1)

(P2)

2/14

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

A.S.No.1018 of 2012

B. The Case of the Plaintiffs :

2.It is the case of the plaintiffs that the properties are ancestral in

nature. Therefore the plaintiff and the defendants are entitled to their

respective shares in the property and the same is liable for partition. The

first defendant did not have any right title or interest to execute the alleged

sale deeds in favour of defendants Nos.7 & 8 in respect of item No.1 of the

suit schedule property and the same are not binding on them. There are no

other impediments to grant partition in respect of the other properties.

2.1 Separate written statements were filed by defendants Nos.5 & 6,

7 & 8. As far as defendants Nos.5 & 6 are concerned, they admitted the

claim of the plaintiffs and also prayed for granting their shares in respect

of the suit property. As far as defendants Nos.7 & 8, they contested the

plaint by stating that the specific extent of the properties comprised in

Schedule No.1, were sold by the first defendant being Kartha of the

family, for himself and on behalf of the minors for the needs of the joint

family and therefore, the said sale deeds are valid and binding even on the

plaintiffs.

3/14

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

A.S.No.1018 of 2012

C. The issue and trial :

3.On the strength of the said pleadings, the Trial Court framed five

issues on which inter alia issue No.1 was, “Whether the first defendant

had any right to execute the sale deed in favour of the defendants Nos.7 &

8, respectively?”

4.The Trial Court, after considering the recitals of the sale deeds

Exs.B-1 & B-2, in which, it is mentioned that the property was being sold

for the medical expenses of the grandfather of the plaintiff, and for putting

up the house, and for maintaining of the family, held that it is not

mandatory in all circumstances to get prior permission of the Court before

alienating the minor's properties, especially, when the property is

belonging to the Hindu