IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 05.04.2022

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH

SA.No.729 of 2016

and

CMP No.13872 of 2016

S.Sampoornam

...Plaintiff/Appellant/Appellant

Vs.

1. C.K.Shanmugam

2. E.Santhakumar

3. S.Amudha

4. S.Amsa

5. C.K.Mani

...Defendants/Respondents/Respondents

Prayer: Second Appeal filed under section 100 of the Code of

Civil Procedure to set aside the Judgement and decree dated

09.03.2016 made in A.S.No.44 of 2015 on the file of Subordinate

Judge, Ranipet in confirming the judgement and decree dated

31.10.2013 made in O.S.No.119 of 2009 on the file of District

Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate No.1, Walajapet, Vellore District.

For Appellant

:

Mr.A.Gouthaman

For Respondents

:

Mr.R.Rajarajan

for R1 to R5

JUDGMENT

The Plaintiff is the appellant in this second appeal.

2.The plaintiff filed the suit seeking for the relief

of partition and for allotment of 1/5 th share in the suit

property and also sought for declaration of the sale deed dated

15.06.2009 executed by the 1^st defendant in favour of the 5^th

defendant as null and void.

3.The case of the plaintiff is that the suit property

formed part of a larger extent of property which are ancestral

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

in nature. It is stated that these properties were held by the

great grand father Thalaivirichan Reddy, who had three sons

namely Chinnasamy Reddy, Kathavarayan Reddy and Chinnappa Reddy.

On the demise of Thalaivirichan Reddy, his three sons inherited

the property. One of the son Kathavaraya Reddy had three sons

Munirathinam, Shanmugam and Mani. According to the plaintiff,

these three sons were jointly enjoying the property on the

demise of Kathavaraya Reddy. The Plaintiff claims that the 1^st

defendant father and defendants 2 to 4 who are the sisters of

the plaintiff are each entitled for 1/5^th share in the suit

property.

4.

The grievance of the plaintiff is that the 1^st

defendant went ahead and sold an extent of 36 cents in favour of

the 5^th defendant through a sale deed dated 15.06.2009 and

according to the plaintiff, this sale deed is null and void and

not binding on the other sharers. That apart, the 1^st defendant

was not coming forward to allot the shares to the other legal

heirs and hence, the suit came to be filed seeking for the

reliefs stated supra.

5.

The 1^st defendant filed a written statement. He

took a stand that the three sons of Kathavaraya reddy had a

family arrangement and each was alloted specific portion to an

extent of 1.07 acres. According to the 1^st defendant, he is the

absolute owner of the property measuring an extent of 1.07 acres

and during his life time, the plaintiff cannot claim any share

in the property. Therefore, the 1^st defendant justified the sale

of a portion of the property in favour of the 5^th defendant, who

is none other than the brother of the 1^st defendant. Accordingly,

the 1^st defendant has sought for the dismissal of the suit. This

written statement was adopted by defendants 2 and 5.

6.

Both the Courts below on considering the facts

and circumstances of the case and after analyzing the oral and

documentary evidence concurrently held against the plaintiff and

dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has

filed this second appeal.

7.

When the matter came up for hearing on

29.03.2022, this Court passed the following order :-

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.

When the matter was taken up for hearing on

25.03.2022, this Court wanted the learned counsel for

the appellant to clarify as to the nature of the

property in the hands of the first defendant, who is

the father of the plaintiff. This is in view of the

fact that both the Courts below have concurrently held

that the property, in the hands of the first

defendant, is an exclusive property and therefore the