BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT JUDGMENT RESERVED ON : 26.06.2025 JUDGMENT PRONOUNDED ON : 21. 07.2025 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR S.A.Nos, 120, 121 and 334 of 2001 and CMP.No.1335 of 2001 SA.Nos.120 & 121 of 2001 Guruva Thayammal ....Appellant/1^st Respondent /Plaintiff in both appeals Vs

1.Jeya Leela (died)

2.Kutty alias Rajaboopathi

3.Jeeseeli

4.Rajaman Singh

5.Sridhar ...Legal heirs of the 1^st respondent/

in both appeals

6.Ramadoss 7.Rajammal

8.Marimuthu ...Respondents/Respondents/

/Defendants in both appeals (Memo is recorded to the effect that R1 died, R2 to R5 who are already on record are recorded as legal heirs of the deceased R1 vide Court order dated 18.02.2025)

SA.No.334 of 2001 Guruva Thayammal ...Appellant/First Respondent /Plaintiff Vs

1.Marimuthu ...1^st respondent/appellant /4^th defendant

2.Ramdas

3.Rajammal ...Respondents 2 & 3/

Respondents 2 and 4/

Defendants 1 and 3

4.Jeyaleela (died)

5.Kutty alias Rajaboopathi

6.Jeeseeli

7.Rajaman Singh

8.Sridhar ....Legal heirs of the 4^th respondent (Memo is recorded to the effect that R4 died, R5 to R8 who are already on record are recorded as legal heirs of the deceased R4 vide Court order dated 18.02.2025)

COMMON PRAYER : Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of C.P.C, to set aside the common judgment made in A.S.No.29 of 1997, A.S.No.45 of 1997 and A.S.No.53 of 1997 and the decree in A.S.No.29 of 1997 all dated 26^th June 1998 on the file of the Additional Sub Court, Srivilliputhur and restore the decree and judgement dated 27^th January 1997 made in O.S.No.

277 of 1996 on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Srivilliputhur.

(In all the second appeals)

For Appellant : M/s.Chithra Sampath Senior Counsel for Mr.P.Santhosh Kumar For Respondents : Mr.M.Thirunavukkarasu for R8 :M/s.M.Rajeswari for R4 & R5 :No appearance – R2, R3, R6 and R7

COMMON JUDGMENT

All the three second appeals have been filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.277 of 1996 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Srivilliputhur.

(A)Factual Matrix:

2.The suit schedule properties were jointly purchased by one Sudalaimuthu Nadar and his wife Pathamuthu Ammal under Exhibit A1 dated 23.03.1959. The said Sudalaimuthu Nadar had died intestate. Pathamuthu Ammal had executed two settlement deeds in favour of the plaintiff under Exhibit A2 dated 19.03.1979 and Exhibit A3 dated 22.03.1979 with regard to the 2^nd schedule property in respect of her ½ share in the property purchased under Exhibit A1. The balance ½ share belonging to Sudalaimuthu Nadar is shown as 1^st item of the 3^rd schedule property. Apart from that, two other items are shown in the 3^rd schedule property.

3. It is the case of the plaintiff that after the settlement deed was executed in her favour, she had handed over the property to the 2^nd defendant for management and after death of the mother in the year 1992, he had refused to share the benefits from the agricultural properties. Therefore, the suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession with regard to the 2^nd schedule property.

4.The plaintiff had further contended that as far as the 1^st item of 3^rd schedule property ( half share of Sudalaimuthu Nadar), she is entitled to 1/4^th share. The 2^nd and 3^rd items in the 3^rd schedule property are house property and a pathway connected to the house and they are ancestral properties and therefore, she is entitled to seek 1/4^th share in the entire 3^rd schedule property. Hence, she has prayed for a preliminary decree and a final decree to be passed for the 3^rd schedule property.

5.The defendants have filed a written statement contending that though the properties were jointly purchased in the name of Sudalaimuthu Nadar and Pathamuthu Ammal, Pathamuthu Ammal did not have any independent income. The entire sale consideration came from Sudalaimuthu Nadar. Therefore, Pathamuthu Ammal is only a name lender for her ½ share. In such circumstances, the mother is not entitled to execute Exhibits A1 and A2 settlement deeds in favour of the p