SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 74208

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
M/S.KUPPANDI AMBALAM (DIED) – Appellant
Versus
POOVAN AMBALAM – Respondent



BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT JUDGMENT RESERVED ON : 23.07.2025 JUDGMENT PRONOUNDED ON : 31.07.2025 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR S.A.No.1969 of 2001 Kuppandi Amabalam (died) ..../ Appellant/Appellant

1.Palaniammal

2.Karuppaiah 3.Palanichami

4.Chinnathayee

5.Kathayee

6.Thangavel

7.Valliappan ....Appellants/Legal heirs of the sole appellant (Appellants 1 to 7 brought on record as legal heir of the deceased sole appellant vide Court order dated 02.12.2016)

Vs

1.Poovan Ambalam

2.Perumal (died)

3.Palaniandi Ambalam (died)

4.Chinna Kuthan Ambalam

5.Chinnammal

6.Andiammal

7.Chinnammal

8.Koothan Ambalam (died)

9. Chinnammal

10.Kuppandi Ambalam

11.Ariyammal

12.Perumal

13.Chinna Ariyammal ....Respondents/Respondents/

Defendants

14.Andiyammal

15.Kuppandi

16.Kotthan ..Legal heirs of the deceased 2nd respondent/---

17.Thangammal 18.Chinnammal

19.Ariyammal

20.Vellaiammal

21.Kuppandi ...Legal heirs of the deceased 3rd respondent/---

22.Palaniyandi

23.Murugan Kuthan

24.Chinnammal

25.Kathammal Muniyandi ...Legal heirs of the deceased 8th respondent/---

(Respondents 14 to 16 are brought on record as legal heirs of the deceased 2nd respondent vide Court order dated 24.01.2020)

(Respondents 17 to 21 are brought on record as legal heirs of the deceased 3rd respondent vide Court order dated 22.06.2023)

(Respondents 22 to 25 are brought on record as legal heirs of the deceased 8th respondent vide Court order dated 17.07.2023)

PRAYER: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of C.P.C, against the decree and judgment of the Court of the Principal District Judge, Dindigul made in A.S.No.155 of 1990 dated 28.09.2000 confirming the decree and judgment of the Court of the Additional District Munsif made in O.S.No.1227 of 1985 dated 05.09.1990.

For Appellants : Mr.G.Gomathi Sankar For Respondents : Mr.H.Lakshmi Shankar for R5, R9 to R13, R17 to R21 :No appearance for R14 to R16 & R22 to R25 :R1, R2, R3, R4, R6, R7 & R8 - died

JUDGMENT

The plaintiff in a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction has filed the present second appeal challenging the concurrent findings of the trial Court as well as the appellate Court.

(A)Factual Matrix:

2.In the plaint, it is contended that the suit schedule properties were originally owned by the grandfather of the plaintiff namely Kuppandi Ambalam and he had passed away leaving behind the plaintiff's father namely Palaniandi Ambalam as his sole legal heir. The said Palaniandi Ambalam had died leaving behind the plaintiff and his mother Kathayee. Thereafter, the mother Kathayee had also passed away and hence, the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property.

3.The plaintiff had further contended that the suit 1st schedule is a thrashing field and the plaintiff is entitled to 1/3rd share in the suit schedule property. Another 1/3rd share is owned by the defendants 1 to 3 and balance

1/3rd share is owned by the 4th defendant.

4.It is further contended that the suit in the 1st schedule property is in the joint name of the plaintiff and the defendants. As far as the 2nd and 3rd item of schedule of properties are concerned, patta stands in the name of the plaintiff and the defendants do not have any right over the same. The defendants are obstructing the plaintiff from enjoying the tamarind tree in the suit schedule properties and they are compelling the plaintiff to sell the property in their favour. Hence, the present suit.

5.The defendants have filed a written statement contending that the plaintiff is a stranger to the suit schedule property. The plaintiff's mother name is Kathi and not Kathayee. The plaintiff is no way connected with Kuppandi Ambalam. Based upon same common name found in the village, he is attempting to claim title. The defendants have further contended that the suit 1st schedule item is absolutely owned by the defendants 1 and 2. The suit 2nd and 3rd items were jointly owned by the defendants 1 and 2 along with their uncle Palaniandi. It was further contended that the revenue records have

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top