SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 74937

MADRAS HIGH COURT
M.SATHISHKUMAR – Appellant
Versus
SUBBANNA GOUNDER – Respondent
AS 881/2012



Advocates:
['A E RAVI CHANDRAN', 'M/S D MUTHUSELVAM', '', 'p wilson topaz', 'c santhosh kumar', 'c/v filed by m/s a ram kumar', 'R S SHAKUNTALA', 'R M BANUMATHI', 'FOR R', 'R']

A.S.No.881 of 2012

THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Orders Reserved on

29.03.2022

Orders pronounced on

17.06.2022

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE S. KANNAMMAL

A.S.No.881 of 2012

1. M. Sathishkumar

S/o Marimuthu

2. Minor M.Parimalam

D/o Marimuthu

[Rep.by Guardian and Father

Marimuthu]

... Appellants/Plaintiffs

(Cause title accepted vide order dated

30.07.2012 made in M.P.No.1 of 2012

in A.S.(SR) No.54215 of 2012)

Vs.

1. Subbanna Gounder

2. Palanathal

3. M.Banumathi

4. S.Shakuntala

5. S. Vadivel

... Respondents/Defendants

Appeal Suit is filed under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code to

set aside the Judgment and Decree of the Principal District Judge,

Coimbatore, dated 09.03.2012 made in O.S.No.323 of 2008.

Page 1 / 39

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

A.S.No.881 of 2012

For Appellants

: Mr.A.S. Ravichandran

For Respondents 1 & 2 : Mr.D.Muthuselvan

Respondents 3 & 4 : No appearance

For Respondent-5

: Mr.C.Santhosh Kumar

J U D G M E N T

The Appellants, who are plaintiffs in O.S.No.323 of 2008, have

filed this appeal challenging the judgment and decree, dated 09.03.2012,

passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Coimbatore

2.

For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to

as they were arrayed in the original suit.

3.

The brief facts, as averred by the plaintiffs in the original

suit, are as follows:

One Krishnasamy Gounder, father of the 1st Defendant owned an

extent of 5.40 acres in Neelambur Village, comprised in various survey

numbers. Krishnasamy Gounder had two wives, viz., Subbathal and

Chinnammal. Through his first wife Subbathal, Krishnasamy Gounder

Page 2 / 39

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

A.S.No.881 of 2012

had a son by name Subbanna Gounder (first respondent/first defendant)

and a daughter by name Rajathal, who is no more. Through his second

wife Chinnammal, Krishnasamy Gounder had a son by name Palanisamy

and two daughters by name Subbathal and Chinnakkanna. Legal heirs of

Krishnasamy Gounder through his two wives, partitioned the properties

on 22.12.1986 by a Partition Deed registered as document No.2120 of

1986 with SRO, Sulur. The properties were divided into three schedules,

viz., 'A' schedule was allotted to Tmt.Chinnammal, 'B' schedule was

allotted to Subbanna Gounder (first respondent/first defendant) and 'C'

schedule was allotted to Palanisamy. 'B' schedule properties, to an extent

of 2.69½ acres allotted to Subbanna Gounder (first respondent/first

defendant), are the suit properties herein. Ever since the date of partition,

the suit properties are jointly enjoyed by Subbanna Gounder (first

respondent/first defendant) and his family. Subsequently, through a

registered partition deed dated 08.06.2004, registered as Document

No.2524 of 2004 with SRO, Sulur, respondents/defendants partitioned

the suit properties into four shares. Even though the defendants 3 and 4

are entitled to 1/4th share each in the suit properties ie., 67.37 cents each,

they were clandestinely allotted only 20 cents each. Believing the words

of defendants 1, 2 and 5 that the suit property was being divided into four

Page 3 / 39

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

A.S.No.881 of 2012

equal shares, respondents 3 and 4/defendants 3 and 4 have signed the

document. The division of property is improper and illegal. Moreover,

the interest of the minor plaintiffs have also been ignored and neglected.

Since the suit property being ancestral property and the plaintiffs are

grandchildren of Subbanna Gounder, they are totally entitled to 8/48

share. The partition deed 08.06.2004 is invalid, unenforceable and not

binding on the plaintiffs, as it was not executed in accordance with law.

Therefore, they filed the suit for (i) declaration that the partition deed

08.06.2004 is null and void; (2) partition of the plaintiffs 8/48 share and

also (3) permanent injunction restra

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top