S.A.No.210 of 2005

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

RESERVED ON

: 17.11.2022

PRONOUNCED ON

: 30.01.2023

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY

S.A.No.210 of 2005

and C.M.P.No.3037 of 2005

1.Kuppusamy (Deceased)

2.Andal Ammal

3.Chinnasamy

4.Ramayee Ammal

5.Kalaiarasi

6.Anbazhagan

7.Gokul U

8.Elavarasan

...Appellants

[Appellants 5 to 8 brought on record as legal

heirs of the deceased 1^st appellant vide order

dated 28.06.2018 made in C.M.P.No.1097 to

1099 of 2011 in S.A.No.210 of 2005

Versus

Pandu Konar

...Respondent

1/20

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

S.A.No.210 of 2005

Prayer: Second Appeal filed Under Section 100 of the Code of Civil

Procedure against the Judgment and Decree dated 29.08.2001 made in

A.S.No.127 of 2000 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Villupuram,

reversing the Judgment and Decree dated 18.08.2000 made in O.S.No.813

of 1995 on the file of the II Additional District Munsif, Ulundurpet.

For Appellant

:

Dr.A.Thiyagarajan

Senior Counsel

for Mr.S.Ramesh Kumar

For Respondent

:

Mr.N.Suresh

JUDGEMENT

This Second Appeal is preferred as against the Judgment and Decree

dated 29.08.2001 made in A.S.No.127 of 2000 on the file of the Principal

District Judge, Villupuram, reversing the Judgment and Decree dated

18.08.2000 made in O.S.No.813 of 1995 on the file of the II Additional

District Munsif, Ulundurpet.

2.The appellants herein are the defendants and the respondent herein

is the plaintiff in the suit.

2/20

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

S.A.No.210 of 2005

3.For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their

ranking before the trial Court.

4.The case of the plaintiff is that he had filed a suit for declaration of

title under the premise that originally the entire extent in the survey

numbers being the subject matter of the suit viz., S.Nos.18 and 19 belonged

to one Kuppa Konar and his younger brother Chinnaiya Konar. The said

Kuppa Konar has three sons viz., Chinnasamy Konar, Duraisamy Konar and

Thadha Konar. The plaintiff had purchased the properties from the

descendants of the said Chinnasamy Konar and Duraisamy Konar.

5.It is the case of the plaintiff that the properties were already divided

among the aforesaid brothers. As a matter of fact, the said Thadha Konar's

only son was Periyathambi and Periyathambi had two wives viz., Lakshmi

and Thangammal. Periyathambi's son was Pichan through first wife

Lakshmi, and Pichan's wife was Kuppammal and the couple Pichan and

Kuppammal begot Kuppusamy and Chinnasamy viz., defendants 1 and 3.

3/20

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

S.A.No.210 of 2005

6.It is the plaintiff's case that under Ex A9, the share Thadha konar

obtained in the partition was specified by his grandson Pichan and he had

executed settlement deed in favour of his wife Kuppammal specifically

stating that he had got 87 cents as his share in S.No.18/1 and 35 cents as a

share in S.No.19/2. On the basis of the above said settlement the said Pichan

had clearly settled his right and share in respect of the above survey

numbers. Under Ex.A10 on 29.08.1967, Kuppammal had executed a

settlement deed in favour of her sons viz., 1^st and 3^rd defendants, the same

share as her husband Pichan specifically stated under Ex.A9. But

unfortunately, the 1^st and 3^rd defendants had executed two separate

settlement deeds under Ex.B.43 and Ex.B45 under which each of them viz,

1^st defendant had bequeathed 35 cents in respect of S.No.19/2 in favour of

his wife, the 2^nd defendant and 3^rd defendant had executed yet another 35

cents in favour of his wife viz., the 4^th defendant. However, it is very clear

that both of them are totally entitled to only 35 cents in S.No.19/2 even as

per Ex.A10. But they both totally dealt with 70 cents of land in favour of

their wives. Therefore, those settlement deeds are void to the extent of m