IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 23.06.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R. KALAIMATHI S.A.No. 756 of 2019 and C.M.P.Nos.14649 of 2019 and 14454 of 2021 Rajamani, represented by her Power of Attorney V.Karuppannan, S/o. Veeraappa Thevar, D.No.58-A, Angalamman Koil Street, Perur, Coimbatore -10, Present address at No.6/5, West Car Street, Perur, Coimbatore -641 010 ...Appellant / Plaintiff Vs.

U.Bhagyalakshmi ...Respondent / defendant PRAYER:- This Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to set aside the judgement and decree dated 25.03.2019 in A.S.No.31 of 2016 passed by the learned 1^st Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore reversing the judgement and decree dated 26.04.2016 made in O.S.No.831 of 2007 on the file of the III-Additional District Munsif, Coimbatore.

For Appellant : Mr.M.Balasubramanian For Respondent : Mr.R.Ganesh Babu JUDGMENT This Second Appeal is filed by the plaintiff herein against the judgement and decree dated 25.03.2019 passed in A.S.No.31 of 2016 by the Ist Additional Sub Court, Coimbatore.

2. The parties are indicated herein as per the litigative status and ranking before the Trial Court.

3. According to the plaintiff, the defendant U.Bhagyalakshmi is the sister of the plaintiff. The schedule mentioned property originally belonged to R.V.Mariappan, father of the plaintiff and the defendant. He purchased the said property from one Maruthachalam by registered sale deed on 20.02.1976. Her father R.V.Mariappan died on 20.02.1993 leaving behind the plaintiff and defendant alone as legal heirs. After their father's demise, the plaintiff and the defendant entered into an oral partition of the suit property. The plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of southern portion of the suit property and the defendant is in possession and enjoyment of northern portion of the suit property. As there is no partition effected between them, she could not develop the property. The plaintiff demanded for division of the suit property as per oral partition or by metes and bounds, by issuance of legal notice dated 14.03.2007 to the defendant. Despite the receipt of notice, she has neither come forward for an amicable partition of the suit property nor sent any reply notice. As the defendant and her tenants were causing disturbance to her, the plaintiff and her husband V.Karuppannan filed a suit in O.S.No.1301 of 2005 before the Principal District Munsif Court, Coimbatore for permanent injunction. The suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff. Hence, the plaintiff filed the suit for partition.

4. Per contra, the defendant contends that the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit. The plaintiff has no right to claim half share in the property. The suit property was allotted to the defendant as per the partition settlement entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant in the presence of their father R.V.Mariappan. Thereafter, the defendant became the absolute owner of the suit property. The plaintiff was allotted a house property bearing Door No.5 at Perur Village. She mutated revenue records in her name, including the Property tax and house tax stands in her name. The plaintiff constructed multi-storied building upon the said land. Suppressing the said fact, this suit has been filed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff is claiming half share in the defendant's property. The plaintiff was never in possession of the schedule mentioned property. The plaintiff has admitted in the plaint that there was an oral partition for division of two properties of late R.V.Mariappan and not the present suit property. The plaintiff has filed a false suit in O.S.No.1301 of 2005 to create records for claiming right over the suit schedule property. The suit is liable to be dismissed.

5. Based on the rival pleadings, the Trial Court framed relevant issues.

At trial, in order to substantiate the claim details, on the side of the plaintiff, the plaintiff's husband V.Karuppannan was examin