IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 23.11.2018

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR

S.A.No.162 of 2012

and C.M.P.No.I of 2012

1.Ramasamy

2.Bakkiyammal

.. Appellants/Plaintiffs

Vs.

1.A.Kandasamy ... 6^th defendant

2.S.Sakunthala

3.R.Narmadha

4.S.Karthikeyan ... LR's of the 5^th defendant

5.Saraswathi

6.Minor Sudha

7.Minor Karthi ... Defendants 2 to 4

8.Pavayee

9.Pavayee

10.Jayalakshmi

11.Tamilselvi

... LR's of the deceased first defendant

PRAYER: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of C.P.C

against the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge's Court

at Tiruchengode, dated 28.02.2011 in A.S.No.97 of 2008 reversing

the judgment and decree of the District Munsif Court at

Tiruchengode, dated 13.08.2003 in O.S.No.2 of 1995.

For Appellants : Mr.P.Valliappan

For Respondents : No appearance

J U D G M E N T

This second appeal has been filed against the judgment and

decree dated 28.02.2011 made in A.S.No.97 of 2008 on the file of

the Subordinate Judge's Court, Tiruchengode, reversing the

judgment and decree in O.S.No.2 of 1995 on the file of the

District Munsif Court, Tiruchengode dated 13.08.2008.

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

2

The brief facts of the plaintiff is as follows:

The suit was originally filed for a partition and separate

possession to divide the suit property into four equal shares

and to allot to 3 such shares to the plaintiff. It is the case

of the plaintiff that the suit property originally belonged to

his great grand father viz., Karuppanna Gounder. The said

Karuppanna Gounder had two sons namely Karuppanna Gounder and

Arumuga Gounder and after the death of the plaintiff’s great

grand father his two sons become entitled to a share in the suit

property. The Plaintiff’s grand father Karuppanna Gounder had

two sons by name Karuppa Gounder and sengoda Goundar. After the

death of the plaintiff’s grand father, the plaintiff’s father

and his brother became entitled to ¼^th shares in the suit

property. The plaintiffs father Karuppa Gounder purchased the

properties from Arumuga Gounder in respect of entire shares in

the suit property. Now, the plaintiff’s father Karuppanna

Gounder had 3/4^th share totally in the schedule property by

ancestrally and by purchase. Sengoda Gounder had one son by

name Karuppanan and he died in the year 1999, leaving his wife

Saraswathy and daughter Sudha and son Karthi. The first

defendant is plaintiff’s uncle and defendents 2 to 4 are the

legal heirs of the first defendant's deceased son. The

defendants 1 to 4 are entitled to ¼^th share in the suit

property. There were no partition by meats and bounds but for

only convenient sake, both the families are cultivating lands

according to their shares. The defendants 1 to 4 executed a sale

deed dated 9.11.1994 in respect of the land to an extent of 87

cents in favour of the defendants 5 and 6. The defendants 1 to 4

have no right to execute the sale deed in respect of more than

¼^th shares in the suit property in favour of the defendants 5 and

6 and their wife. Hence, the suit for partition.

3

The defendants 1 and 2 remained ex-parte. The

defendants 3 and 4 had not filed any written statement, whereas,

the subsequent purchasers the defendants 5 and 6 filed a written

statement contending that they purchased property with the

specific boundaries from the Sengoda Gounder and others for

valid consideration and where put in possession of the

properties. There was a partition already effected among the

defendants to the defendants 1 to 4, hence, the defendants 5 and

6 have purchased the property and where put in possession and

enjoyment of the properties. There is no cause of action for the

suit and hence, resisted the suit.

4

The tr