SA.No.1697 of 2001

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 09.02.2023

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE P.T.ASHA

SA.No.1697 of 2001

Kanniappan

... Appellant

Vs.

1.N.M.Kisthappa Chettiar (died)

2.Renukammal

3.Subramanian

4.Vasantha Raj

5.Dhanasekaran

6.Panchatcharam

7.Delhi Baskar

8.M.Mangai

9.Vasantha

... Respondents

1/15

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

SA.No.1697 of 2001

[Respondents R.2 to 9 brought on record as legal representatives of the

deceased R.1 viz., N.M.Kisthappa Chettiar vide Court order dated

22.09.2022 made in CMP.Nos.16874, 16875 and 16878/2022 in

SA.No.1697/2001 (KRJ)]

PRAYER: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the CPC, against the

judgement and decree dated 20.02.2001 in A.S.No.11/2000 on the file of the

learned Subordinate Judge of Madurantakam, which is confirming the

judgement and decree dated 31.03.2000 made in OS.No.143 of 1995, on the

file of the District Munsif of Madurantakam.

For Petitioner : Mr.M.S.Mani

For Respondents : Mr.K.Govi Ganesan [R.2 to R.9]

: [R.1 died]

JUDGEMENT

The defendant is the appellant before this Court challenging the

concurrent judgement and decree suffered by him in a suit for partition. The

facts necessary for disposing of the Second Appeal is hereinbelow set out

and the parties are referred to in the same ranking as before the Trial Court.

2/15

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

SA.No.1697 of 2001

2. The plaintiff had filed the above suit seeking partition and separate

possession of his 1/3rd share in the suit schedule property. It is his case that

the suit property originally belonged to Solai Pillai and Thiruvengada Pillai

as their ancestral property. Solai Pillai died in and around the year 1950

leaving behind him surviving his only son Seeyala Pillai. Seeyala Pillai, in

turn, died in or around the year 1957 leaving behind his son, the defendant

in the above suit. Meanwhile, Thiruvengada Pillai also passed away in the

year 1957 leaving behind him surviving his wife, Amma Kannammal and

three daughters, namely, Chinna Ponnu, Giriammal @ Lakshmi Ammal and

Thanjammal.

3. The widow passed away in the year 1955 and her daughters

Chinna Ponnu and Thanjammal died in the year 1959. Chinna Ponnu had a

daughter Govindammal and likewise, Thanjammal also had a daughter,

Kuppammal. The 2nd daughter Giriammal @ Lakshmi Ammal had died

issueless in or around the year 1991.

3/15

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

SA.No.1697 of 2001

4. The suit property measures an extent of 17 cents and both Solai

Pillai and Thiruvengada Pillai had an equal share in it. Consequently, the

defendant is entitled to a half share as the legal heir of Solai Pillai which

was inherited by his son Seeyala Pillai, the father of the defendant.

5. It is the case of the plaintiff that Thiruvengada Pillai’s half share

had devolved on his 3 daughters, each being entitled to a 1/3rd share in the

properties belonging to Thiruvengada Pillai. The plaintiff has purchased the

share of the Govindammal, the daughter of Chinaponnu and Kupammal, the

daughter of Thanjammal. Therefore, he is entitled to a 1/3rd share of the suit

property. The plaintiff would submit that despite his several requests to

partition the suit property, the defendant had not come forward to execute

the same. Therefore, the plaintiff was constrained to file this suit for

partition.

6. The written statement filed by the defendant would indicate that he

had denied the claim of the plaintiff. It is his case that Solai Pillai had died in

the year 1952 and his daughters Chinnaponnu and Thanjammal had pre-

deceased their father. The 2nd daughter Giriammal @ Lakshmi Ammal died

4/15

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

SA.No.1697 of 2001

on 01.04.1987 leaving behind 3 children, Pachayammal, Dhanam and

Elumalai. The defendant would submit that as per the law then in existence

at the time of the death of Thiruvengada