IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

RESERVED ON : 12.09.2025

PRONOUNCED ON : .12.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE A.D.MARIA CLETE

A.S. No.88 of 2018

and CMP.No.2288 of 2018

1. Sambu Ammal

W/o.Late Perumal Gounder

2. P. Balu

S/o.Late Perumal Gounder … Appellants

Vs.

Dhanam @ Dhanalakshmi

W/o.Chinnathambi Gounder

D/o.Late Perumal Gounder

Door No.1/10B, Koonankadu,

Valakuttapatti,

Yervadi Post, Mallur Via,

Salem Taluk, Salem District. ...Respondent PRAYER in A.S.: Appeal Suit filed under Section 96 of CPC to set aside the judgment and decree dated 19.08.2017 passed in O.S.No.280 of 2014 on the

file of II Additional District Judge, Salem.

Prayer in CMP.: To stay all further proceedings in pursuance to the judgment and decree dated 19.08.2017 passed in O.S.No.280 of 2014 on the file of II

Additional District Judge, Salem till the disposal of the above first appeal.

For Appellants : Mr.M.S.Krishnan Senior Counsel for M/s.Sarvabhauman Associates For Respondent : Mr.P.Jagadeesan

J U D G M E N T

Heard

2. This appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree dated

19.08.2017 passed by the learned II Additional District Judge, Salem, in O.S.

No.280 of 2014.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the suit

4. The brief facts of the plaintiff’s case are as follows: The plaintiff is the step-sister of the 2nd defendant. The plaintiff was born to the first wife of her father, namely Nallayee. After the demise of the plaintiff’s mother, her father, Perumal Gounder, married the 1st defendant and through her begot the 2nd defendant. The plaint contains five items of properties. Items 1 and 2 of the suit properties were purchased by Perumal Gounder under sale deeds dated 03.10.1969 and 02.12.1969 respectively and stand in his name. The 3rd item of property stands in the name of the 1st defendant and the 4th item of property stands in the name of the 2nd defendant. The plaintiff submits that Perumal Gounder obtained 0.33 cents of property under a registered family partition deed dated 27.10.1978. He alienated the property obtained under the said partition in favour of one Udhayakumari and purchased the 4^th item of property in the name of the 2nd defendant. The defendants had no independent means to purchase the properties and therefore the 3rd and 4th items of properties were purchased by Perumal Gounder in the names of the defendants. The 5th item of property was also purchased by Perumal Gounder. He, along with the 2nd defendant, mortgaged the said property and later redeemed the same. Perumal Gounder died intestate in the year 1989 leaving behind the plaintiff and the defendants as his only legal heirs. Hence, the plaintiff claims 1/3rd share in the suit schedule properties.

5. The brief facts of the written statement are as follows: The defendants contended that the plaintiff is not the daughter of Perumal Gounder. The contention of the plaintiff that Perumal Gounder’s first wife was Nallayee, that she gave birth to the plaintiff, and that after her demise Perumal Gounder married the 1st defendant, is denied. It is further contended that the 3rd and 4th items of properties were purchased by the defendants themselves. According to the defendants, they are the only legal heirs of Perumal Gounder and the plaintiff is a stranger to the family of the defendants, and therefore the suit is liable to be dismissed.

6. The Trial Court, after framing the necessary issues, held that the plaintiff is a legal heir of the deceased Perumal Gounder and granted partition of 1/3rd share in Items 1, 2 and 5 of the suit schedule properties, while negative the claim of the plaintiff in respect of Items 3 and 4 of the suit schedule properties standing in the names of the defendants.

7. In the grounds of appeal, the appellants inter alia contended that the Trial Court wrongly held that the plaintiff is the daughter of Perumal Gounder in the absence of any documentary evidence produced by the plaintiff and in the absence of any document to show that