IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 29.08.2025 CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI S.A No. 546 of 2006 & S.A No. 1170 of 2008 S.A No. 546 of 2006 :

Boologammal ... Appellant Vs

1.Lakshmana Pillai

2.Chittibabu ...Respondents PRAYER in S.A No. 546 of 2006: This Second appeal has been filed under Section 100 CPC, against the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge, Kancheepuram in A.S No. 28 fo 2001 dated 30.04.2003 confirming the judgment and decree in OS No. 841 of 1998 dated 17.11.2000.

For Appellant :Mr.K.Kalyanaraman For Respondents:Mr.C.K. Chandrasekaran Krishnan ... Appellant Vs.

1. Lakshmana Pillai(Died)

2.Ramu

3.Raja

4.Chittubabu

5.Kannan

6.Boologammal

7.Sankar 8.Mohan

9. Usha

10. V. Srinivasan

11.Muniyan

12.Prakash

13.Suresh 14.Sujatha

15.Rakha (R1 Died, R9 to R15 brought as legal heirs of the deceased R1 vide court order dated 02.03.2023 made in CMP No.3010 of 2023 in S.A No.

1170/2018)

..Respondent PRAYER in S.A No. 1170 of 2008 : This Second appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree dated 19.11.2007 in A.S No. 78 of 2006 on the file of the Sub Judge, kanchipuram, confirming the judgment and decree in OS No. 978 of 1998 dated 30.11.2005 on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Kanchipuram partly decreeing the suit.

For Appellants : Mr.S.Kalyanaraman For R2, R3 &R5 : Mr.C.K. Chandrasekaran, for Mr.M.Balasubramanian.

For R4 : Mr.G.Mutharasan For R6 :MR.C.R.Kamalakannan R9 to R15 Not appeared R1 died

COMMON JUDGMENT

The Second appeal in S.A No. 546 of 2006 filed against the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge, Kancheepuram in A.S No. 28 of 2001 dated 30.04.2003 confirming the judgment and decree in OS No. 841 of 1998 dated 17.11.2000, on the file of the District Munsif, Kancheepuram.

2. The Second appeal in S.A, No.1170 of 2008 filed against the judgment and decree dated 19.11.2007 in A.S No. 78 of 2006 on the file of the Sub Judge, kanchipuram, confirming the judgment and decree in OS No. 978 of 1998 dated 30.11.2005 on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Kanchipuram partly decreeing the suit.

3. The appellants in S.A No. 1170 of 2008 is the plaintiff in OS No.

978 of 2008 on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Kancheepuram, who filed the said second appeal challenging the concurrent findings of the courts below in respect of B & C schedule properties.

4. Before the Trial Court the appellant krishnan filed the suit claiming lawful share in A, B and C schedule ancestral properties against his father/first defendant and 8 other defendants. The defendants 1, 7 to 9 contested the suit and other defendants remains exparte. The first defendant contested the case and not admitted that the suit properties are ancestral in nature, more particularly the first defendant contended that B Schedule property is self acquired property belongs to the defendants 1 to 5 by way of acquisition and also contended that C schedule property also a separate property. On Considering the both side submissions the Trial Court held that plaintiff proved that A schedule property is ancestral property and granted 1/9 share therein. In respect of B & C schedule property, it held that the plaintiff failed to prove that it is a ancestral properties but on the other side, first defendant proved that B schedule property is a self acquired property and in respect of C schedule property plaintiff has not proved that it is ancestral property. Therefore, against B and C schedule property the suit was dismissed. Against which, plaintiff Krishnan filed the appeal in AS No. 78 of 2006 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Kanchipuram, wherein the first appellate Court after considering the oral and documentary evidence held that plaintiff not produced substantial evidence to prove their common ancestral nucleus to purchase the B schedule property but the first defendant produced relevant sale deeds Ex.B3 to Ex.B5 and proved that it is a separate property thereby confirming the findin