Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 49969
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
T.V. Thamilselvi, J
Alamelu – Appellant
Versus
Jayaraman – Respondent
Second Appeal Nos. 343 & 344 of 2002
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.S.P.Mani
For the Respondents: Mr.R.Karthikeyan
The court affirmed that properties were self-acquired and not joint family assets, dismissing claims for partition based on lack of evidence for joint family status.
Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code - Section 100 - Partition and declaration of title - Second appeals against the concurrent findings of lower courts regarding the ownership of suit properties - The trial court dismissed the partition suit, while the declaratory suit was decreed, establishing properties as self-acquired rather than joint family - Plaintiffs, as legal heirs of deceased, were entitled to half share after intestate death of their mother-in-law. (Paras 50, 51, 52, and 54)
(B) Legal principles - The properties in question were determined to be self-acquired, with no evidence of a joint family nucleus presented by the plaintiffs. (Paras 49, 50, and 51)
(C) Issues - The main issues included the nature of the properties (self-acquired vs. joint family) and the plaintiffs' entitlement as legal heirs. (Paras 50 and 52)
(D)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the plaintiffs failed to prove that the properties were joint family properties and that the trial court's findings were sustainable. (Paras 49, 50, and 51) (E)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the properties were self-acquired and not subject to partition, as the plaintiffs did not establish joint family status. (Paras 50 and 51) (F)
Result: Second appeals allowed in part; plaintiffs entitled to half share in the suit properties. (Paras 53 and 56) (G) Parties involved: Appellants - wife and minor son of deceased; Respondents - father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased. (H) Dissenting opinions: None.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of appeals and factual background. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. claims and counterclaims regarding property ownership. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. trial court findings on property ownership. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 4. appellate court confirmation of trial court's findings. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 5. legal arguments presented by appellants. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 6. discussions on the validity of the will. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42) |
| 7. conclusion on the will's validity and property ownership. (Para 43 , 44 , 45) |
| 8. final judgment on property distribution. (Para 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50) |
| 9. final decree and order for property possession. (Para 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56) |
COMMON JUDGMENT
The appellants have preferred these Second Appeals against the Judgment and decree dated 31.07.2001, passed in A.S.Nos.159 & 160 of 1999 on the file of the Principal District Court, Tiruvannamalai in confirming the judgment and decree dated 16.08.1999 passed in O.S.No.218 of 1994 & 274 of 1998, respectively on the file of the Subordinate Court, Tiruvannamalai.
2. For the purpose of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as they are ranked in the suit.
3. Challenging the concurrent findings of the courts below, the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 218 of 1994 and Defendants 2 and 3 in O.S. No. 274 of 1998 preferred these two appeals. Before the trial court, the appellants/plaintiffs filed a suit for partition and separate possession of a 5/18th share in all the suit properties, along with consequential reliefs against three defendants.
4. One Lakshmi Ammal, the mother-in-law of the first plaintiff, Alamelu, had already filed a suit in O.S. No. 529 of 1992, later renumbered as O.S. No. 274 of 1998, before the Subordinate Court, Tiruvannamalai, praying for a declaration of title in respect of the suit properties against eight defendants. In that suit, the current appellants were ranked as Defendants 2 and 3. Both suits were tried jointly by the learned trial judge, as the parties and suit properties were the same in both matters.
5. Upon considering the evidence on record, the trial court dismissed the partition suit filed by the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 218 of 1994 and decreed the declaratory suit filed by Lakshmi Ammal in O.S. No. 274 of 1998. Challenging those findings, the appellants preferred appeals in A.S. Nos. 159 and 160 of 1999 before the learned Principal District Judge, Tiruvannamalai. The learned first appellate judge independently analyzed the entire facts, circumstances, and evidence, and ultimately dismissed both appeals, confirming the findings of the learned trial judge. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings of the courts below, plaintiffs Alamelu and her minor son Vasudevan have preferred the present appeals.
6. The appellants are the wife and minor son of one deceased Mani. As his legal heirs, they filed the partition suit in O.S. No. 218 of 1994 against three defendants: the first defendant, Jayaraman, is the father-in-law of the first plaintiff; the second defendant, Neelagandan, is her deceased husband’s brother, and the third defendant is her mother-in-law. They claimed 5/18th share in the suit properties, stating that the properties originally belonged to one Theerthagiri Nayakar, who formed an undivided Hindu family. Except for Item No. 7, all the suit properties, along with other properties, were enjoyed by Keerthagiri Nayakar and his sons, Munisamy and Sadayappan, as a joint Hindu family. An oral partition allegedly took place in the year 1920. Sadayappan Nayakar married Muthu Vadivammal, and they had three sons and four daughters. Sadayappan and his sons formed a Hindu joint family, and he purchased 4 acres and 53 cents in the name of his wife, Muthu Vadivammal, in 1944. However, the said property was also treated as joint family property. In 1961, Sadayappan, his three sons, and their mother entered into an oral partition. Ite
