IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

JUDGMENT RESERVED ON: 31.01.2022

JUDGMENT DELIVERED ON: 22.02.2022

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE G.CHANDRASEKHARAN

S.A.No.1068 of 2021

and

C.M.P.No.20180 of 2021

1. Natarajan

S/o, Rathinasabapathy

2. Datshayani

W/o, Sivalingam ... Appellants/Defendants

Vs.

Balammal

W/o, Thulasi ... Respondent/Plaintiff

Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 r/w Order XLI

of C.P.C., against the judgment and decree dated 21.02.2020

passed in A.S.No.17 of 2015 on the file of the Principal

Subordinate Judge, Kancheepuram, confirming the decree and

judgment in O.S.No.1165 of 2008 dated 14.08.2014 on the file of

the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Sriperumbudur.

For Appellants : M/s.Nathan and Associates

J U D G M E N T

Challenge is to the concurrent judgment of the Courts below

in A.S.No.17 of 2015 on the file of the Subordinate Court,

Kanchipuram, confirming the judgment in O.S.No.1165 of 2008 on

the file of the District Munsif-cum- Judicial Magistrate at

Sriperumpudur.

2. The respondent/plaintiff filed the abovesaid suit for

partition in O.S.No.1165 of 2008 to divide the suit property

into three equal shares and to allot one share to her and for

permanent injunction restraining the appellants from alienating

the respondent's 1/3^rd share and for costs.

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

3. The case of the respondent/plaintiff is that the first

defendant Rathinasabapathy is her father and the appellants are

her brother and sister respectively. The suit property

originally belonged to one Rani alias Sivagamiammal by purchase

through a registered sale deed on 23.09.1930. She executed a

maintenance settlement deed in favour of the respondent/

plaintiff's mother Ganammal in respect of the suit property in

the year 1942. After the execution of settlement, the

plaintiff's mother was in possession and enjoyment of the suit

property and house tax receipt was transferred in her name and

she was paying house tax. Her title and possession were upheld

by the Additional District Munsif Court, Poonamallee in

O.S.No.40 of 1976, in which, the first defendant was a party.

Ganammal died leaving her husband, appellants and the respondent

as her legal heirs to succeed to her estate. After her death,

all of them are in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit

property. The respondent/plaintiff is entitled to 1/4 share in

the suit property. She is away from the suit property. Taking

advantage of the same, the appellants tried to grab the entire

suit property. They were not amenable for an amicable

partition. A notice dated 27.12.1999 was issued to the

appellants and their father. Another notice dated 31.01.2000

was also issued. In spite of oral requests and notices

demanding partition, the appellants have not come forward to

effect partition. Hence the plaintiff filed the present suit.

4. It is seen from the written statement filed by the first

appellant/second defendant that he admitted the relationship

between the parties. It is denied that, after the death of

Ganammal, the appellants and the respondent were enjoying the

property jointly as co-owners. The respondent is not at all in

joint possession and enjoyment of the suit property. She got

married 20 years back and separated from the alleged joint

family. The first appellant during his young age, with his hard

earned money, performed the marriage of the second appellant and

the respondent. The second appellant and the respondent

relinquished their right in the suit property. The suit

property was enjoyed by the first appellant independently and

all the records had been changed in his name. The first

appellant spent huge amount for the s