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

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP Appeal Suit No.351 of 2023 and C.M.P.No.12162 of 2023 ---

D.Murthy ... Appellant Versus

1. C.Mallika 2. V.Shanthi

3. D.Karunanidhi ... Respondents Appeal Suit filed under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure r/w.

Order XLI Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 against the Judgment and Decree dated 04.08.2022 made in O.S. No. 6519 of 2018 on the file of the learned XV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.

For Appellants : Mr. R. Thiagarajan For Respondents : Mr. J. James

JUDGMENT

This Appeal Suit had been filed to set aside the Judgment and Decree passed by the learned XV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in O.S.No.6519 of 2018 dated 04.08.2022.

2. The learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the Appellant is the Plaintiff in O.S.No.6519 of 2018 on the file of the learned XV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.

3. The brief facts as per the learned Counsel for the Appellant is that the father of the Plaintiff/A. Damodharan was employed in the Metropolitan Transport Corporation. The mother of the Appellant was divorced by his father when the Appellant was aged one year. Subsequently, the father of the Appellant married one Baby Ammal. Through the second wife, Baby Ammal, the Defendants 1 to 3 were born. The property was purchased in the year 1972. The father of the Appellant executed a settlement deed in favour of his second wife/Baby Ammal.

4. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the Appellant that even though the father married one Baby Ammal as second wife, the Appellant was brought up by them as natural son. While so, the said Baby Ammal died in the year 2009. Subsequent to the death of Baby Ammal, the sons and daughter of Baby Ammal created a partition deed. Therefore, the Plaintiff had filed the Suit. Before that, the properties were mortgaged to Chindadripet Co-operative Societies in which the Appellant was also a co-applicant.

Subsequently, they created a mortgage in favour of Purasaivakkam Santhana Sanga Nithi for Rs.1,60,000/- in which the Appellant was also a co-applicant. After the death of the father of the Appellant, the Appellant had discharged the mortgage loan and redeemed the documents. While so, the sons and daughter of Baby Ammal had created partition deed denying the share of the Appellant. Therefore, he had filed the Suit for partition seeking 1/4^th share in the property. Also, he had sought to declare the partition deed entered into between the sons and daughter of Baby Ammal as null and void. After full trial, the learned XV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai by Judgment dated 04.08.2022 rejected the claim of the Plaintiff and dismissed the Suit.

5. Aggrieved by the same, this Appeal had been filed to set aside the Judgment and decree passed by the learned XV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai as the learned Judge had not appreciated the facts as gathered from the records based on the documents furnished by the Plaintiff.

6. The learned Counsel for the Respondents submitted that the claim of the Plaintiff is not true. He relied on the evidence of the Plaintiff himself in which he had admitted that the property was purchased by his father. Issue No.4 in the Suit is with regard to the self acquired property of A. Damodharan and it was answered in favour of the Defendants.

7. Also, the learned Counsel for the Respondents submitted that the Plaintiff in the Suit had not sought relief to declare the settlement deed as null and void. After the death of Baby Ammal, sons and daughter of Baby Ammal are alone entitled to succeed the property as per the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The learned Counsel for the Respondents also invited the attention of this Court to the discussion of evidence by the learned XV Additional Judge, City Civil Court regarding Issue Nos.2 and 3 and had answered the issues against the Plaintiff based on his own admission in