IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 02.01.2026

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.D. MARIA CLETE

Velusamy

S/o.Chinnaiah Gounder

Kuruncherri Village,

Thenmarapalayam Majara,

Veeralpatti,

Pollachi Taluk. ... Appellant

Versus

1. Radhamani

W/o.Manoharan,

Puravipalayam Village and

Post, Pollachi Taluk.

2. Periyammal

W/o.Chinnaiah Gounder

Kuruncherri Village,

Thenmarapalayam Majara,

Veeralpatti,

Pollachi Taluk.

3. Jeyamani

W/o.Thangavel Gounder,

Kuruncherri Village,

Thenmarapalayam Majara,

Veeralpatti,

Pollachi Taluk.

4. Lingammal

W/o.T.Balusamy

West Street,

Avalcinnam Palayam Village,

Pollachi Taluk.

5. V.Jeyaprakash S/o.Velusamy Gounder, Kuruncherri Village, Thenmarapalayam Majara, Veeralpatti, Pollachi Taluk.

6. V.Mohana Rukmani S/o.Velusamy Gounder, Kuruncherri Village, Thenmarapalayam Majara, Veeralpatti, Pollachi Taluk. ... Respondents PRAYER in S.A.:

Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree dated 01.12.2011 made in A.S.No.7 of 2011 on the file of the Principal District Court, Coimbatore in confirming the judgment and decree dated 19.08.2010 made in O.S.No.22 of 2008 on the file of the Sub Court, Pollachi and allow the above revision petition.

APPEARANCE OF PARTIES:

For Appellant : M/s.V.Srimathi For Respondents : Mr.T.P.Manoharan for R1 R2 - Died R3 to R5 served – No appearance

ORDER

Heard

2. This Second Appeal is directed against the concurrent Judgment and Decree whereby the suit filed by the 1st respondent / plaintiff in O.S.No.22 of 2008 on the file of the Sub Court, Pollachi, for partition and separate possession was decreed by Judgment dated 19.08.2010, and the said decree was confirmed by the Principal District Court, Coimbatore, in A.S.No.7 of 2011 by Judgment dated 01.12.2011.

3. The appellant herein is the 1^st defendant. For the sake of convenience, the parties referred as they arrayed in the suit.

4. The plaintiff’s case is that the suit properties belonged to her father, Chinnaiyah Gounder, who died intestate on 10.01.1989, leaving the plaintiff and the defendants as his legal heirs. She pleaded that the “A” Schedule comprises ancestral/derivative properties, Item No.1 tracing its origin to a registered partition deed dated 13.04.1972 and Item No.2 tracing to a joint purchase of Chinnaiyah Gounder and his brother under sale deed dated 21.11.1971, followed by an alleged oral division— while the “B” Schedule house property was purchased by the plaintiff’s father under sale deed dated 10.07.1969. Alleging that the defendants refused to effect partition despite issuance of notice, the plaintiff instituted the suit seeking partition of the “A” Schedule into 15 equal shares and allotment of 6 shares to her, and partition of the “B” Schedule into 5 equal shares.

5. The first defendant resisted the suit, inter alia, by pleading ouster/adverse possession relying upon documents stated as Ex.B1 to Ex.B35, contending that the grant of share in favour of the plaintiff is illegal; by disputing the acceptance of the oral partition pleaded in respect of Item No.2 of ‘A’ Schedule; and by raising an objection of non-joinder on the footing that Item No.2 stood in the names of the plaintiff’s father and paternal uncle.

6. The Trial Court, on appreciation of pleadings and evidence, held that the plaintiff had established her right as a co-heir to seek partition and that the properties were partible. The Trial Court rejected the defence of ouster/adverse possession, holding that the materials relied upon by the appellant did not satisfy the legal requirements to non-suit a co-owner in a partition action. The Trial Court further declined to accept the plea of non-joinder as projected by the appellant on the facts of the case. In the result, the suit was decreed for partition, granting the plaintiff 1/10 share in the suit properties.

7. The defendant preferred First Appellate Court, plaintiff not filed any appeal or cross appeal regarding the ratio of share allotted to her. The first appellate court re- app