BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT JUDGMENT RESERVED ON : 08.08.2025 JUDGMENT PRONOUNDED ON : 28.10.2025 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR S.A.No.318 of 2001 and CMP.No.3313 of 2001 Rajagopal Chettiar (died)

2.Amirthammal

3.Sundarraj (died)

4.Bose (died) ....Appellants 2 to 4 /Legal heirs of deceased sole appellant

5.Devi

6.Arunpandian

7.Manoj Kumar ....Appellants 5 to 7 /Legal heirs of deceased 4th appellant

8.Nambunachi

9.Usha

10.Barathi

11.Rajeshwari

12.Sathya ....Appellants 8 to 12 /Legal heirs of deceased 3rd appellant Vs

1.Ulagammal (died)

2.Murugan

3.Natarajan Chettiar (died)

4.Kumar ....Respondents/Plaintiffs & Defendants 1 & 3 /Appellants & Respondents 1 & 3

5.Mala

6.Banumathi ....Respondents 5 & 6 /Legal heirs of deceased 1^st respondent

7.Kesavan

8.Manokaran

9.Muthukali ....Respondents 7 to 9 /Legal heirs of deceased 3^rd respondent (Appellants 2 to 4 are brought on record as legal heirs of the deceased sole appellant vide order dated 22.08.2007)

(Appellants 5 to 7 are brought on record as legal heirs of the deceased 4^th appellant vide order dated 24.01.2020)

(Appellants 8 to 12 are brought on record as legal heirs of the deceased 3^rd appellant vide order dated 15.02.2024)

(Notice to the 4^th respondent is dispensed with vide Court order dated

23.12.2022)

(Respondents 5 & 6 are brought on record as legal heirs of the deceased 1^st respondent vide order dated 24.01.2020)

(Respondents 7 to 9 are brought on record as legal heirs of the deceased 3^rd respondent vide order dated 24.01.2020)

PRAYER: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of C.P.C, against the judgment and decree dated 10.02.2000 of the learned Principal District Judge, Ramanathapuram made in A.S.No.9 of 1999 reversing the judgment and decree dated 24.03.1998 of the learned Principal District Munsif, Ramanathapuram made in O.S.No.169 of 1995.

For Appellants : Mr.G.Sridharan For Mr.T.M.Hariharan For Respondents : Mr.V.George Raja For M/s.Ajmal Associates for R2, R5 & R6 : No appearance fro R7, R8 and R9 :R1 & R3 died : R4 dispensed with

JUDGMENT

The second defendant in a suit for partition is the appellant herein.

2.The respondents 1 and 2 in the second appeal have filed O.S.No.

169 of 1995 before the Principal District Munsif, Ramanathapuram for the relief of partition and separate possession claiming 1/3^rd share in the suit schedule properties. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court. The plaintiffs have preferred A.S.No.9 of 1999 before the Principal District Judge, Ramanathapuram. The appeal was allowed and a preliminary decree for partition to allot 1/3^rd share in favour of the plaintiffs was granted.

Challenging the said judgment and decree, the present second appeal has been preferred by the second defendant.

(A).Pleadings of the parties:

3.The plaintiffs have contended that the suit schedule properties were originally owned by Muthusamy Chettiar, Vellaisamy Chettiar and Chellam Chettiar who are the sons of Govindan Chettiar. They were running an Oil Mill as a joint family business and the suit schedule properties are purchased in the name of Muthusamy Chettiar (eldest son) on 30.01.1920.

4.It is further contended in the plaint that though the property was purchased in the name of Muthusamy Chettiar, it was enjoyed as a joint family property. Muthusamy Chettiar had put up a house on the eastern side and a middle portion was constructed by Vellaisamy Chettiar and western most portion was under the occupation of Chellam Chettiar by constructing a house. It was further contended in the plaint that Muthusamy Chettiar had died leaving behind his son Natarajan (D1) and Sundararajan Chettiar. After the death of Vellaisamy Chettiar, his properties were enjoyed by his wife Sikappi @ Nallathangal. Vellaisamy Chettiar was survived by his son Gurusamy Chettiar whose wife is the first plaintiff, namely Ulagammal. The said Ulagammal's daughter is the second plaintiff.

5.It is further contended in the plaint that Chellam Chettiar's son is the second defendant. Since the properti