S.A.No.882 of 2008

and M.P.No.1 of 2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 17.04.2023

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R. HEMALATHA

S.A.No.882 of 2008

and

M.P.No.1 of 2008

1.Dhanammal

2.Kannammal

..Appellants

vs.

1.Krishnaveniammal (Died)

2.B.Lakshmiammal

3.Kasthuriammal

4.B.Srinivasalu

5.B.Vishnu

6.K.Gumasekaran (Given up) ..Respondents

(R1 Died, Appellants 1 & 2 and RR2 to 4 (already on record) are LRs of

the deceased R1, R6 given up vide Court order dated 27.02.2023 made in

S.A.No.882 of 2008)

PRAYER: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure

Code against the decree and Judgment dated 26.09.2007 in AS.No.47 of

2006 on the file of the Sub Court, Ranipet, reversing the decree and

Judgment dated 16.11.2005 in OS.No.305 of 2004 on the file of the

District Munsif Court, Arakkonam.

1/10

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

S.A.No.882 of 2008

and M.P.No.1 of 2008

For Appellants

: Mr.S.Gowri Shankar

For Respondents

: No appearance

JUDGMENT

The appellants are the plaintiffs in OS.No.305 of 2004 on the

file of the District Munsif Court, Arakkonam (originally R.O.S.No.246 of

1995 on the file of the Sub Court, Ranipet). They filed the suit against the

defendants 1. Krishnaveniammal, 2.Lakshmiammal, 3.Kasthuriammal,

4.B.Srinivasalu, 5.B.Vishnu and 6.K.Gunasekaran for partition of the suit

property morefully described in the plaint as a house bearing Door No.27,

Gandhi Road, Palanipet, Arakkonam Town, Vellore District. They sought

for partition of the suit property into six equal shares and to allot two such

shares to them.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as

per their ranking in the trial court and at appropriate places, their rank in

the present second appeal would also be indicated.

3. The case of the plaintiff in nutshell is as follows:

2/10

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

S.A.No.882 of 2008

and M.P.No.1 of 2008

The suit property is the self acquired property of one K.Babu

Naidu father of the plaintiffs and the defendants 2 to 4. The defendants 5

& 6 are the tenants in the suit property. The first defendant

D.Krishnaveniammal (Since deceased) is the mother of the plaintiffs and

the defendants 2 to 4. After the death of Babu Naidu, the plaintiffs and

the defendants 1 to 4 became entitled to 1/6 share in the suit property.

According to them, the defendants 1 to 3 are residing in a portion of the

suit property while the fourth defendant is residing in a different place. It

is their further contention that since the defendants did not come forward

to divide the suit property as requested by the plaintiffs they were forced

to file the suit.

4.The defendants 1 to 3 in their written statement admitted that

the suit property is the self acquired property of their father. However, the

fourth defendant in his written statement had contended that the suit

property is the ancestral property of his father and hence, the plaintiffs

and the defendants 1 to 3 cannot claim any share in the suit property as

they are all female heirs.

3/10

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

S.A.No.882 of 2008

and M.P.No.1 of 2008

5.After full contest, the learned trial court judge decreed the suit

in favour of the plaintiffs vide his decree and judgment dated 16.11.2005

by observing that the suit property is the self acquired property of late

Babu Naidu, the father of the plaintiffs and the defendants 2 to 4 and

husband of the first defendant and hence the plaintiffs are each entitled to

1/6 share.

6. Aggrieved over the decree and judgment passed by the trial

Court, the defendants filed an appeal in AS.No.47 of 2006 on the file of

the Sub Court, Ranipet. The learned Subordinate Judge, Ranipet, after

analysing the oral and documentary evidence adduced on both sides held

that the suit property is an ancestral property of late Babu Naidu and

therefore, the plaintiffs c