IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 24.11.2025 Coram:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL and M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2015 ---

1. Senthamarai

2. Rani .. Appellants Vs.

1. Raja @ Rajendran

2. Tmt.Selvanayaki .. Respondents Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree dated 31.01.2014 passed in A.S.No.46 of 2010 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Ariyalur, reversing the judgment and decree dated 12.07.2010 passed in O.S.No.371 of 2005 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Jayankondam.

For appellants : M/s.M.Dhamodharan For respondents: Mr.P.Dinesh Kumar for M/s.K.A.Vimal Kumar for R-1 Second appeal dismissed against R -2, vide order of Court, dated 16.12.2022 JUDGMENT This Second Appeal has been preferred as against the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court in A.S.No.46 of 2010 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Ariyalur, reversing the judgment and decree dated 12.07.2010 passed in O.S.No.371 of 2005 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Jayakondam.

2. For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties in this appeal are referred to as they are ranked in the Original Suit before the trial Court as plaintiff and defendant.

3. The case of the plaintiffs is that the first plaintiff married the first defendant and the second plaintiff was born to the first plaintiff and the first defendant. The second defendant is the sister of the first defendant and the third defendant is the mother of the first defendant. The suit properties are ancestral properties and originally they belonged to the father of the first defendant and the second defendant and the husband of the third defendant, due to misunderstanding between the first defendant and the first plaintiff, the plaintiffs are residing separately. Since the properties are ancestral properties, the first plaintiff is entitled to 1/3 share over the properties. Therefore, the present suit is filed for partition and separate possession of the properties.

4. The case of the defendants before the trial Court is that the suit is false and the properties are not ancestral properties and the first defendant has sons and daughters and they are also the shareholders of the properties. Therefore, the suit is not maintainable. As per the community customs and usage, the first plaintiff was divorced and thereafter, the first defendant married one Deivamani and he has got four children through the second marriage.

5. Based on the above said pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues:

(i) Whether the second defendant is entitled to preliminary decree of 1/4 share over the properties;

(ii) Whether the first plaintiff is entitled to maintenance of Rs.500/- per month ? and (iii) To what other relief the plaintiffs are entitled to ? The trial Court also framed additional issues as below:

(i) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to 1/4 share over the properties ? (ii) Whether the first plaintiff is entitled to charge over the properties ?

6. On the side of the plaintiffs, the first plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 and Ex.A-1 was marked. On the side of the defendants, the first defendant was examined as D.W.1 and Exs.B-1 to B-7 were marked.

7. After hearing both sides and after perusal of the records, and analysing the evidence adduced on both sides, the trial Court decreed the suit by granting preliminary decree of 1/4 share over items 1 to 3 of the suit properties and dismissal of the suit against item Nos.4 and 5 of the properties. The trial Court also granted maintenance of Rs.500/- p.m. to be paid by the first defendant to the plaintiffs and created charge over the properties.

8. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial Court, the first defendant preferred First Appeal in A.S.No.46 of 2010 before the first appellate Court and after hearing both sides, the first appellate Court framed the following points for determination:

(i) Whether the judgment and decree of the trial Court is sustainable ?

and (ii)