Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 40108
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Mr. A.A. Nakkiran, J
Mrs. Lalitha – Appellant
Versus
Ellammal (deceased) – Respondent
C.S.No.110 of 2010
For the Plaintiff: M/s. Vedavalli Kumar
For the Defendants: Mr. S.L.Sudarsanam for D5, D6, D8 and D9, D1, D3 and D10 – deceased, D2, D4, D7, D11 to D13-set exparte
The court upheld the validity of the partition deeds, determining that without evidence of ancestral ownership, claims of partition by the plaintiff could not succeed.
Headnote:(A) Hindu Succession Act - Issues regarding partition and validity of deeds - Issues framed concerning the validity of a partition deed executed between the parties and the implications of a settlement deed executed prior - The court observed that a partition deed executed between legal heirs establishes absolute ownership and no claim can arise against it without proper documentation supporting ancestral rights. (Paras 6, 14, 17)
(B) Legal Standing - The plaintiff's claims were deemed unsubstantiated due to lack of evidence proving joint ownership or ancestral rights, and the court emphasized that ownership determined the distribution of shares among heirs indicated by valid deeds. (Paras 14, 17)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff sought partition and declaration against various defendants claiming ancestral rights over properties. The defendants countered by asserting ownership and validity of earlier deeds.
Findings of Court:
The court validated the partition deeds and declared the plaintiff did not hold rights to any claims against the properties as claimed in the plaint.
Issues: The applicable questions were the validity of the partition deed, legitimacy of sale and settlement deeds, and the plaintiff's rights to share in the estate.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that without evidence supporting ancestral ownership, claims of partition cannot stand against established records of ownership by other heirs.
Result: Suit dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. plaintiff claims partition of ancestral properties. (Para 2) |
| 2. defendants contest the existence and ownership of the properties. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. court emphasizes need for documentation proving ancestral claims. (Para 6 , 12) |
| 4. court determines plaintiff's claims lack substantiation. (Para 14 , 17) |
| 5. final ruling dismisses plaintiff's suit. (Para 18) |
JUDGMENT
The Plaintiff filed the above suit against the defendants seeking the above said reliefs.
2. The case of the plaintiff, as set out in the plaint is as follows;
(a) The plaintiff is the daughter of 1st defendant and late Kannaiya Naidu and the defendants 2 to 7 are her brothers and sisters. The 1st defendant and Late Kanniya Naidu had five daughters and three sons and one of her brother by name Bagthavatchalam died as a bachelor. The 1st defendant and one Durgi Ammal were the daughters of Nallayi Ammal, who is plaintiff's maternal grand mother. Nallayi Ammal possessed the following ancestral properties viz., 1. Plot No.12 in 1st Street, Plot No.15 in 2nd Street and 150 cents land in Ottiyambakkam Main Road behind Jeppiar College, 4. 100 cents land in Padur Village of Old Mahabalipuram Road. The original documents are with Ellammal and her son in law Jagannathan and Rani. Till her death on 28.11.1983, Nallayiammal was in absolute possession and enjoyment of the above said properties. After the death of Nallayiammal, the 1st defendant and one Durgiammal, being the surviving legal heirs of Nallaiyiammal, inherited the same and has been in possession and enjoyment of the above said properties.
b) Apart from that, plaintiff's grandmother owned properties at Padur, Arasangeni, immovable properties at Kancheepuram, Ottiyambakkam and Thousand Lights morefully described in the B schedule to the plaint. The plaintiff requested the 1st defendant to allot 1/8th share and separate possession of the suit properties, inspire of her request, the defendants failed to effect partition thereby deprived her legitimate share of the suit properties.
c) The first defendant and her sister illegally partitioned the ancestral properties and sold away one of such lands in S.No.67/3 measuring 0.23-1/2 cents illegally by executing sale deed in favour of one Sekar on 27.12.2006. The partition deed dated 14.06.2007 is illegal one and non est. The sale deed is sham and nominal and liable to be set aside.
d) The Plaintiff's father purchased a property on 19.12.1962 bearing Door No.22, West Mada Street, P.V.Koil, Ayanavaram, Chennai measuring 2400 sq.ft., out of ancestral funds and put up construction thereon and hence this property is also an ancestral property and no self acquired property of late Kanniah Naidu. During 2006, she came to know that Ayanavaram property had been settled by her late father on 26.09.1984 in the names of defendants 2 to 8 leaving out the plaintiff. The property in Ayanavaram was purchased during 1962 by plaintiff's father by selling the ancestral properties in Kandigai village, but treating it as self acquired property he settled the same in favour of defendants 2 to 8. hence, the settlement deed executed is illegal and non-est in the eye of law.
e)The plaintiff married one Hanumanthan and since she could not bear the physical and mental torture meted out by her husband, she left her husband with her sons and brought her daughter separately and set up an independent home. As she was not given proper treatment in her parental home, in 1986, she cohabited with one Ravichandar from 1986. Her husband died in 1990. Since the family members did not approve her cohabitation with the said Ravichander, the 1st defendant and the other defendants ill treated the plaintiff.
f) The plaintiff and the defendants are in joint possession of the entire properties, therefore the plaintiff and the defendants are entitled to 1/8th share each in the suit properties and unless it is divided by metes and bounds and each of the sharers are allotted their respective 1/8th share, the partitio
