S.A.No.623 of 2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Reserved on

: 14.03.2022

Pronounced on

: 05.06.2023

CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S. SUNDAR

S.A.No.623 of 2017

1.V.Vandhana

2.V.Vasanthakumar

... Appellants

Vs.

1.Vijayasekaran

2.Palanisamy

3.Rajalakshmi

4.M/s.Sri Lakshmi Textiles

Represented by its Partner,

B.Rajendran

D.No.130/2E, Sencheri Road,

Pethappampatti, Somavarapatti,

Udumalpet.

5.M/s.Indian Overseas Bank Limited,

by its Branch Manager,

having its business office at

“Shri Shanmugapriya Complex”

Vidyasagar Road, Udumalpet.

6.P.Prathap

7.Devi Prabha

... Respondents

Page 1 of 55

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

S.A.No.623 of 2017

Prayer : Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure,

against the judgment and decree in A.S.No.36 of 2016 on the file of III

Additional District and Sessions Court, Dharapuram, Thiruppur District,

dated 24.04.2017, confirming the judgment and decree in O.S.No.106 of

2014 on the file of Subordinate Court, Udumalpet, dated 28.04.2016.

For Appellants

: Mr.V.Raghavachari

For R4

: Mr.ARL.Sundaresan

Senior Counsel

for M/s.AL.Gandhimathi

For R2, R6 & R7

: Mr.P.Valliyappan

For R1, R3 & R5

: No appearance

J U D G M E N T

The plaintiffs in the suit in O.S.No.106 of 2014 on the file of the

Subordinate Court, Udumalpet, are the appellants in the above Second

Appeal.

2.The appellants filed the suit in O.S.No.106 of 2014 on the file of

the Subordinate Court, Udumalpet, for partition of 2/6 share in suit A-

Schedule and 8/27 share in the suit B-Schedule and for consequential reliefs.

Page 2 of 55

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

S.A.No.623 of 2017

3.The case of the plaintiffs/appellants in the plaint is as follows :

3.1.The suit properties originally belonged to one Ayyappa

Naicker who was holding the same as ancestral. Ayyappa Naicker and his

only son by name Duraisamy Naidu divided the suit properties among the

family members who are coparceners by virtue of a partition deed, dated

11.05.1967, which is registered as Doc.No.2345/1967 on the file of Sub-

Registrar's Office, Udumalpet. As per the said partition deed, A-Schedule to

the deed was alloted to the share of Ayyappa Naicker for life and defendants

1 and 2, who are the sons of Duraisamy Naidu, were given vested interest.

The properties given to Ayyappa Naicker and defendants 1 and 2 are the suit

A-Schedule properties. The properties which are described as B-Schedule in

the partition deed were allotted to the share of Duraisamy Naidu.

Defendants 1 to 3 are the sons and daughter of Duraisamy Naidu. Plaintiffs

are the daughter and son of 1^st defendant.

3.2.After the demise of Ayyappa Naicker, defendants 1 and 2

derived absolute right over the suit A-Schedule properties as per the partition

deed. The property that was allotted to Duraisamy Naidu is the ancestral

property of defendants 1 and 2 who are entitled to equal right along with

Duraisamy Naidu. In the suit B-Schedule property, defendants 1 and 2 have

Page 3 of 55

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

S.A.No.623 of 2017

equal right along with Duraisamy Naidu. Since Duraisamy Naidu died

intestate on 10.06.1993 leaving behind his wife namely Rukmani, who also

died on 28.11.2005 leaving behind defendants 1 to 3 as her legal heirs,

defendants 1 and 2 are entitled to 4/9 share in the suit property each and 3^rd

defendant is entitled to 1/9 share.

3.3.The plaintiffs became major in the year 2010 and 2012

respectively and they are struggling for their livelihood, as the 1^st defendant

is not taking care of the plaintiffs. Therefore, the plaintiffs approached the

defendants 1 and 2 who informed them that the properties had already been

sold. It was only later, plaintiff came to know that an extent of 6.09 Acres of

land have been transferred in favour of 4^th defendant by defendants 1 to 3

under a document of sale dated 02.02.2006 for a pri