BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT JUDGMENT RESERVED ON : 07.07.2025 JUDGMENT PRONOUNDED ON : 29.07.2025 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR S.A.No.2005 of 2003 Meenambal (died) ....Appellant/8^th Respondent /Legal heir of the 1^st defendant

2.Pitchayyammal

3.Palaniammal 4.Janakiraman

5.Kalpana

6.Selvi 7.Doss

8.Revathi ....Appellants (Respondents 8 to 14 in the second appeal are transposed as appellants 2 to 8 vide Court order dated 23.01.2024)

Vs

1.Pandurengan

2.Kalia Pillai

3.G.Thangarasu Nadar

4.Rengarajan 5.Kalimuthu

6.Vanaja

7.Krishnan (Memo dated 07.02.2024 is recorded to the effect that the respondents 2 to 7 are given vide Court order dated 07.02.2024)

PRAYER: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of C.P.C, to set aside the decree and judgment of the Additional District Judge Cum Fast Track Court No.I, Thanjavur in A.S.No.130 of 2001 dated 18.06.2003 reversing the decree and judgment of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Thanjavur passed in O.S.No.250 of 1995 dated 24.07.2001.

For Appellants : Mr.V.K.Vijayaragavan For Mr.G.Ramanathan For Respondents : Mr.G.Karnan for R1 Respondents 2 to 14 given

JUDGMENT

The legal heirs of the first defendant in O.S.No.250 of 1995 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Thanjavur have filed the present second appeal.

(A)Factual Matrix:

2.The first respondent herein had filed the above suit for the relief of partition and separate possession of his 1/3^rd share in the suit schedule property. The trial Court had dismissed the suit. On appeal, the First Appellate Court allowed the appeal and decreed the suit as prayed for. Challenging the same, the legal heirs of the first defendant have filed the present second appeal.

3.The plaintiff has contended that the suit 'A' schedule property are the ancestral properties of his grandfather Ulaganatha Pillai @ Ulaga Pillai who is said to have passed away in the year 1968 leaving behind a daughter and three sons. The plaintiff is the son of one Onthachiya Pillai. The first and second defendants are the other sons of Ulaganatha Pillai @ Ulaga Pillai. The plaintiff had further contended that his father Onthachiya Pillai had passed away on 29.10.1994. He had further stated that his father was a mentally challenged person and the management of the family estate was taken over by the defendants 1 and 2. Though there was no partition, by way of tentative oral arrangement, the sharers were enjoying specific portions in the suit schedule properties.

4.The plaintiff had further contended that the plaint 'B' and 'D'

schedule properties have been purchased from the third parties from and out of the income derived from coconuts, plantains and paddy etc.,in the course of their management of the family estate by defendants 1 and 2. It was further contended that 'C' schedule properties were othied in favour of Ulaganatha Pillai @ Ulaga Pillai and they were not redeemed. Since the mortgages have become time barred, those properties became family properties. Since the oral talks were not responded properly, the suit for partition has been filed.

5.The defendants have filed a written statement contending that the father of the plaintiff, after getting married, got separated himself from his father Ulaganatha Pillai @ Ulaga Pillai after receiving a cash of Rs.1000/- and an extent of 1.5 acres in Survey No.90/2, a residential house in kaduveli village and its garden and also jewels weighing five sovereigns. Since the plaintiff's father got himself separated from the joint family and started living separately about 50 years, the plaintiff is not entitled to seek partition of the property once again.

6.The defendants have further contended that the plaintiff and his father made an attempt to trespass into the suit schedule property on 07.02.1982 and hence, they had filed O.S.No.567 of 1982 as against the plaintiff and his father seeking permanent injunction. In the said suit, it was found that there was no joint family and the contention of the present plaintiff an