IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 28.10.2025 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE T.V. THAMILSELVI and M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2009 S.A.No.270 of 2009:

Lalitha ...Plaintiff/Appellant/Appellant Vs.

1.V.P.Kandasamy Chettiar (died)

2.K.Sridhar

3.Kannan @ Selvaraj

4.K. Karthikeyan

5.Indira @ Manjula

6.Chandra Varadharajan

7.Revathi Subramaniam ...Defendants/Respondents/Respondents S.A.No.271 of 2009:

Lalitha ...Plaintiff/1st Respondent/Appellant Vs.

1.V.P.Kandasamy Chettiar (died)

2.K.Sridhar

3.K. Karthikeyan ...Defendants 1, 2 and 4/Appellants/

Respondents 1 to 3

4.Kannan @ Selvaraj ...3rd defendant/2nd Respondent/

4th Respondent

5.Indira @ Manjula

6.Chandra Varadharajan

7.Revathi Subramaniam ...Defendants 5 to 7 /Respondents 3 to 5/

Respondents 5 to 7 R1 died. Respondents 2 to 4 and sole appellant are already on record as legal representatives of the deceased 1st respondent vide order of this Court dated 01.03.2023 made in Memo SR.No.7060, dated 26.02.2019 in S.A.Nos.270 and

271 of 2009 by VLNJ)

Prayer in S.A.No.270 of 2009: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code against the Judgment and Decree dated 16.12.2008 made in A.S.No.2 of 2008 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Salem, confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 17.09.2007 made in O.S.No.749 of

2003 on the file of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Salem.

Prayer in S.A.No.271 of 2009: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code against the Judgment and Decree dated 16.12.2008 made in A.S.No.3 of 2008 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Salem, reversing the Judgment and Decree dated 17.09.2007 made in O.S.No.749 of

2003 on the file of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Salem.

For Appellants : Mr.R. Mohandoss For Respondents : Mr.T. Murugamanickam for M/s.Zeenath Begam for R2 to R4 R1 – died No appearance for R5 to R7 S.A.No.271 of 2009:

For Appellants : Mr.R. Mohandoss For Respondents : Mr.T. Murugamanickam for M/s.Zeenath Begam for R2 and R3 No appearance for R4 R1 – died R5 – Unclaimed R6 – Left R7 – Person not found COMMON JUDGMENT Challenging the reversal findings of the First Appellate Court, the plaintiff preferred these Second Appeals.

2.The parties are described in the same array as in the Original Suit.

3.Before the Trial Court, the plaintiff filed a suit for partition claiming lawful share of 1/8 share in the suit properties against her father, brothers and sisters, namely, defendants 1 to 7 before the Trial Court.

4.The suit was contested by her father/1st defendant, defendants 2 and 4 to

7 stating that the plaintiff was given sufficient Sridhana and the properties are the self acquired properties of those defendants, in which the plaintiff has no right and title.

5.The Trial Court, after taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidences of both sides held that some of the properties are self acquired properties of the 1st defendant and that the Will marked as Ex.B.10 relied by the defendants 2 and 4 to 7 said to be executed by their mother Seethalakshmiammal, is not a true and valid one and 1/8 share was allotted to the plaintiff in the suit properties belong to her mother Seethalakshmiammal. In respect of other items, some of the items belong to the 1st defendant and they are the self acquired properties of the 1st defendant, since he alive the plaintiff is not entitled to claim any share and some of the items were not given share to the plaintiff holding that it is the self acquired properties of the other defendants. The Trial Judge finally held that the plaintiff was granted 1/8 share in the Items 1 and 2 of the suit properties and in respect of Items 3 to 10, she was not granted any share.

6.Aggrieved over the Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court, both the plaintiff and the defendants preferred appeals in A.S.Nos.2 and 3 of 2008 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Salem. The First Appellate Judge separately analysed the evidence and framed separate p