BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Reserved on 30.07.2025 Pronounced on 10.11.2025 CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN A.S(MD) No.156 of 2020

1.Subbulakshmi

2. Prabhakaran

3. Subhakaran -- Appellants --Vs--

1. Ponnuthai

2. Indirani

3. Anitha 4. Geetha (3rd Respondent mentally retarded plaintiff represented through her Mother 2^nd respondent)

5. Ramayee Ammal (Died)

Memo dated 12.06.2025 presented before the court on 12.06.2025, is recorded as R5 died, and R6 to R9, appellants and R10 who are already on record are recorded as LRs of the deceased R5, vide dated 15.07.2025 in A.S.(MD) No.156 of 2020 by KKRKJ.

6. Aruna

7. Pavithra 8. Sharmila

9. Devaraj @ Devasenan

10. Subbulakshmi -- Respondents Prayer : This Appeal Suit has been filed under Section 96 of C.P.C., to reverse and set aside the judgment and decree dated 14.10.2019 made in O.S.No.45 of 2012 on the file of Learned Principal District Court, Dindigul and dismiss the suit with cost by allowing the appeal.

For Appellant : Mr. S. Pon Senthil Kumaran For Respondents : R-1, R-4, R-5, R-10 No appearance Mr.H.Lakshmi Shankar for R1 to R4 Mr.V.M.Rajendran for R6 to R9

JUDGMENT

This appeal has been filed to set aside the judgment and decree passed by Learned Principal District Court, Dindigul in O.S.No.45 of

2012 dated 14.10.2019

2.Defendants 7 to 9 in O.S No. 45 of 2012 on the file of Principal District Judge Dindigul have filed this appeal challenging the judgment and preliminary decree for partition granted in favour of plaintiffs and other defendants in respect of suit schedule properties Item.No.3 (Survey No.159) and Sub Item No.3 of the 4^th scheduled property (Survey No. 118/1) alone vide impugned judgment in O.S No. 45 of 2012 dated

04-12-2012.

3. Respondents 1 to 4 in this appeal are plaintiff in OS No. 45 of

2012 and the respondents 5 to 10 are the defendants 1to 6 in the suit. Appellants are 7^th to 9^th defendants. For the sake of convenience,the parties are referred to as per their ranking in the trial court.

4. Brief facts of the plaintiffs case:

4.1. The plaintiff filed a suit for partition of 2/6 share in the suit schedule properties stating that Ramasamy gounder had two wives, namely Subbammal and Ramayeeammal. Subbammal died in the year 1976, leaving Ponnuthai (P1), Selvaraj and Anbalagan as legal heirs. Ramasamy gounder also married the first defendant. In the said wedlock, Mathialagan, Subulakshmi and Bhaskaran were born to them. Anbalagan died on 16-3-1988 and selvaraj died on 8-7- 1990 leaving the second plaintiff who is the wife, third and fourth plaintiffs who are the daughters. Mathialagan died on 24-8-2003 leaving the defendants 2 to 5 as legal heirs. First defendant's son Baskaran died on 17/05/2008, leaving the seventh defendant and his minor children namely defendant 8 and 9 as legal heirs. During the life time of Ramaswamy gounder, he and his sons Selvaraj Anbalagan, Matthiyalagan, Baskaran and Ramyeeammal entered into partition on 7-2-1983 . In the said partition, Ramaswamy gounder was allotted A scheduled property. Selvaraj was allotted B scheduled property. Mathialagan was allotted C scheduled property. Anbalagan was allotted D scheduled property. Baskaran was allotted E scheduled property. Ramaswamy gounder sold some of the properties and purchased number of properties in his name. Anbalagan died unmarried and hence his properties devolved upon the Ramaswamy gounder as he was the sole legal heir. Ramasamy gounder and Baskaran made exchange of properties vide exchange deed dated 17/11/1989. Ramayee ammal also executed settlement deed in favour of Ramaswamy Gounder on 11/5/1998. Thus, Ramaswamy gounder was in possession of the properties covered under the partition, exchange deed and settlement deed executed by the Ramayeeammal. He died on 5/12/2010. Hence, the plaintiff issued notice dated 5/11/2011 demanding partition from the defendants. Defendants issued a reply notice dated 30-5-2011. Thereafter, they filed suit stating that properties are lia