Back
MADRAS HIGH COURT
C.VALARMATHI – Appellant
Versus
KULANDAYAMMAL(DIED) – Respondent
SA 1 2018
PARTITION - MINOR'S INTEREST - REPRESENTATION BY MOTHER - VALIDITY - LIMITATION - [S. 6, 8, HINDU MINORITY AND GUARDIANSHIP ACT, 1956]
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a minor, filed a suit for partition of the suit property, claiming a 1/2 share against the respondents. The suit was dismissed by the Trial Court and the first appeal filed by the appellant was also dismissed. The appellant challenged the concurrent findings against her by way of a second appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the partition deed entered into by the appellant's mother, as her natural guardian, was valid and binding on her. The Court further held that the appellant's suit for partition was barred by limitation, as she had failed to file the suit within three years of attaining majority.
Issues: 1. Whether the partition deed entered into by the appellant's mother, as her natural guardian, was valid and binding on her?2. Whether the appellant's suit for partition was barred by limitation?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the partition deed entered into by the appellant's mother, as her natural guardian, was valid and binding on her, as it was not entered into in contravention of Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956.2. The Court held that the appellant's suit for partition was barred by limitation, as she had failed to file the suit within three years of attaining majority, as required by law.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the second appeal, affirming the judgment and decree passed by the lower courts.
S.A.No.1 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 07.12.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR
S.A.No. 1 of 2018
and
C.M.P.No.26 of 2018
C.Valarmathi
...Appellant
Vs.
Kulandayammal (died)
1.P.Selvaraj
...Respondent
PRAYER: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code,
to set aside the judgment and decree dismissing the A.S.No.16 of 2016 dated
01.07.2017 on the file of the I Additional Subordinate Judge, Erode confirming
the Judgment and decree in O.S.No.42 of 2014 dated 01.12.2015 on the file of I
Additional District Munsif at Erode.
For Appellant
: Mr.Prakash Goklaney
For Respondent
: Mr.T.Gowthaman
JUDGEMENT
The unsuccessful plaintiff in the suit for partition is the appellant. The
appellant filed a suit for partition claiming ½ share in the suit property against
1/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.1 of 2018
the respondents/ her deceased mother Kulandayammal. The suit was dismissed
by the Trial Court and the first appeal filed by the appellant was also dismissed.
Challenging the concurrent findings against her, the appellant has come before
this Court by way of second appeal.
2. According to the appellant/plaintiff, the suit property originally
belonged to her paternal grandfather Vaiyapuri Mudaliar. He died 40 years ago
leaving behind his wife Palaniammal, three sons namely Palaniappan,
Sundaram, Manickam and four daughters namely Angayammal, Kamalammal,
Mangayarkarasi and Jothimani. The said Palaniappan died intestate 37 years ago
leaving behind the appellant/plaintiff, his wife Kulandayammal who was arrayed
as 1st defendant and 2nd respondent/2nd defendant. The daughters of Vaiyapuri
Mudaliar executed a Release Deed on 02.02.1976 releasing their right in the
property in favour of their brothers and heirs of deceased brother Palaniappan.
Thereafter, there was a partition in the family between minor plaintiff,
respondents, paternal uncles Sundaram and Manickam and in that partition,
plaintiff was represented by her natural gaurdian and mother Kulandayammal,
the 1st defendant. In the said partition, the suit properties were allotted to
Kulandayammal for life with vested remainder in favour of 2nd defendant. It was
2/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.1 of 2018
averred by the appellant/plaintiff that natural guardian of plaintiff namely
Kulandayammal had no right to release estate of the minor plaintiff in respect of
the suit property and hence, the same was not valid and binding on her.
Therefore, the plaintiff was constrained to file a suit for partition claiming ½
share ignoring the partition entered into between plaintiff, defendants and
paternal uncles of plaintiff dated 02.02.1976.
3. The respondent/2nd defendant filed a written statement denying the
plaint allegations. The suit was mainly resisted by the respondent on the ground
of limitation. The respondent also contended that plaintiff being a eo-nominee
party to the partition deed dated 02.02.1976 cannot maintain the present suit for
partition without seeking cancellation of the partition deed. It was also
contended that in pursuance of the partition, the defendant had taken possession
of the property and he had been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property
for decades. It was also contended that partition deed dated 02.02.1976 cannot
be ignored and the suit for partition is not maintainable after several years.
4. Before the Trial Court, the plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 and three
documents were marked on her side as Ex.A1 to Ex.A3. On behalf of the
3/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.1 of 2018
respondent, the 2nd defendant was examined as D.W.1 and no document was
marked on behalf of the respondent.
5. The Trial Court, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence
available on record, came to the conclusion that the plaintiff failed to exercise the
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
