AS.No.63/2012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Reserved on 10.03.2023

Delivered on 07.06.2023

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR

AND

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI

AS.No.63/2012

Mrs.N.Kalavathy

..

Appellant /

Plaintiff

Versus

1.Mr.Sriramulu Naidu [deceased]

2.Mr.S.Devarajulu

3.Mr.D.Deepakraj

4.Mr.D.Yashwanth

..

Respondents

/ Defendants

R2 recorded as LR of deceased 1^st respondent

vide order dated 05.07.2012 made in AS.No.63/2012

[Memo dated 28.06.2012 in SR.No.54737/2012]

Prayer:-

Appeal Suit filed under section 96 of CPC read with Order 41

Rules 1 and 2 of CPC against the decree and judgment dated 28.03.2011 in

OS.No.22/2008 on the file of the learned Additional District Judge, Fast

Track Court No.III, Tiruvallur.

1

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

AS.No.63/2012

For Appellants

:

Mr.V.Raghavachari,

Senior counsel for

Mr.A.Arumugam

For RR 2 to 4

:

Mr.R.Parthasarathy

Senior counsel for

Mr.J.Harikrishna

R1

:

Died

JUDGMENT

S.S.SUNDAR, J.

(1)

The plaintiff in the suit in OS.No.22/2008 on the file of the

Additional District Court-cum-Fast Track Court-III, Tiruvallur, is

the appellant herein.

(2)

Brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as

follows:

(3)

The appellant filed the suit in OS.No.22/2008 for partition and

separate possession of her 1/3rd share in all the suit properties. The

suit properties consists of 4 schedules, namely, A, B, C and D. The

1st defendant is the father of the appellant/plaintiff and 2nd

2

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

AS.No.63/2012

defendant and the 2nd defendant is the brother of plaintiff.

Defendants 3 and 4 in the suit are the sons of 2nd defendant.

(4)

It is the case of the appellant/plaintiff that the suit properties are the

ancestral family properties of plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 and

the plaintiff is entitled to 1/3rd share in all the suit properties as per

the Hindu Succession Act. It is the further case of the plaintiff that

the 1st defendant/father executed a Deed of Settlement dated

27.06.2002 in respect of A, B and C schedule properties in favour of

2nd defendant and that, he executed further Deeds of Settlement

dated 09.02.2002 in favour of defendants 2 to 4. It is contended by

the plaintiff that the 1st defendant has no right to execute a

Settlement Deed in respect of the entire suit schedule properties as

the plaintiff is also entitled to equal share along with defendants 1

and 2. It is also stated that the Deeds of Settlement dated

26.07.2002 and 09.02.2002 in favour of defendants 2 to 4 are neither

valid nor binding on the plaintiff. It is specifically pleaded that the

plaintiff is a coparcener in the joint family consisting of her

3

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

AS.No.63/2012

father/1st defendant and his two children and that she is entitled to

claim equal share in the family properties by birth as any other male

member of the family by virtue of Hindu Succession Amendment

Act, 2005. In the plaint itself, it is admitted that the 1st defendant

purchased some properties in Chennai out of income derived from

the properties obtained by him in the koor chit [partition] dated

05.09.1955, i.e., A, B and C schedule properties. It is admitted that

the 1st defendant sold a portion of property to a third party namely

one Andal by virtue of sale Deed dated 25.03.1970.

(5)

The suit was contested by the 2nd defendant by filing a written

statement adopted by defendants 1, 3 and 4. The relationship

between the parties is not in dispute. However, defendants 1 to 4

disputed the plaintiff’s claim in respect of 1/3rd share in all the suit

properties. It is also the case of the 2nd defendant that the 1st

defendant got the suit 'A', 'B' and 'C' Schedule properties by virtue of

a partition between himself and his father and his brother through a

koor chit dated 05.09.1955. It is contended that the 1st