IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 24.06.2025 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL APPEAL SUIT NO.265 OF 2018 Thangavel ... Appellant /

Defendant Vs.

Chinnammal ... Respondent /

Plaintiff PRAYER: First Appeal filed under Section 96 read with Order XLI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 praying to set aside the Judgment and Decree dated November 10, 2017, made in O.S.No.93 of 2016 by the learned II Additional District Judge, Erode.

For Appellant : Mr.P.Saravana Sowmiyan for M/s.C.Prabakaran For Respondent : Mr.J.Manikandan for M/s.R.Marudhachalamurthy

J U D G M E N T

Feeling aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated November 10, 2017 passed in O.S.No.93 of 2016 by the 'II Additional District Court, Erode' ['Trial Court' for brevity], the defendant therein has filed this Appeal Suit under Section 96 read with Order XLI Rule 1 of 'the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908' ['CPC' for short].

2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred to as per their array in the Original Suit.

PLAINTIFF'S CASE

3. The case of the plaintiff as put forth in the plaint is that the Suit land was purchased by one Arumuga Nadar, who is the father of the plaintiff (daughter) and the defendant (son), on June 21, 1957 vide Sale Deed (Document No.1420/1957). Subsequently, he constructed Suit superstructures in the Suit land. Arumuga Nadar passed away on October 24, 1988 leaving behind his wife - Karuppayammal, the plaintiff and the defendant as his legal heirs / legal representatives. Karuppayammal passed away on September 30, 2003 leaving behind the plaintiff and the defendant as her legal heirs / legal representatives. According to the plaintiff, the Suit Property is the self-acquired property of Arumuga Nadar and hence, the plaintiff and the defendant are each entitled to half-a-share in the Suit Property.

3.1. It is further averred that the plaintiff and the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- from one Sakthivel on March 10, 2008 and executed a registered Sale Agreement registered as Document No.1611/2008 (Joint – I, SRO, Erode). On the same day viz., March 10, 2008, they executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of one Palaniappan vide Document No.402/2008 (Joint – I, SRO, Erode) who is the friend of the said Sakthivel as per the demand of the said Sakthivel as security for the said loan. It is further averred that, though the said Gowthaman and Sumathi had no right, interest, or title over the Suit Property, and they were also added as parties to the said Sale Agreement and the General Power of Attorney, only at the compulsion of the said Sakthivel. The plaintiff and the defendant repaid the entire loan amount, along with the accrued interest, to the said Sakthivel in May 2009 itself. However, the said Sakthivel failed to cancel the Sale Agreement. The Sale Agreement cannot be enforced as barred by limitation. The Power of Attorney was cancelled on March 30, 2016 vide Document No.2148/2016 (Joint - I, SRO, Erode).

3.2. After the demise of their parents, the plaintiff and the defendant have been in joint possession and enjoyment of the Suit Property. Accordingly, the plaintiff has filed a Suit seeking partition of the Suit Property into two equal shares and allotment of one such share to the plaintiff.

DEFENDANT'S CASE

4. The defendant filed a written statement stating that Arumuga Nadar and the defendant constituted a Hindu joint family, and that the Suit land was purchased and the Suit superstructure thereon was put up by the joint family. It is further stated that both were enjoying the Suit Property jointly and that the defendant alone has been maintaining the family and managing all the affairs of the joint family. After the demise of Arumuga Nadar and Karuppayammal, the defendant along with his son - Gowthaman and daughter – Sumathi alone has been enjoying the Suit Property. The plaintiff was entitled to only 1/4 share in the Suit Property. The plaintiff insisted the defendant to provide her