IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 09-01-2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI and CMP.No.15373 of 2021

1. V. Karunanithi S/o.Venkatesan, East Colony, Komarapalayam Village, Tiruchengode Taluk, Namakkal District.

Appellant(s)

Vs

1. K.Santhi W/o.Late Kumanan, Residing At, D.No.376, Salem Main Road, Komarapalayam Village, Tiruchengode Taluk, Namakkal District.

2.Jothipriya D/o.Late Kumanan, Residing At, D.No.376, Salem Main Road, Komarapalayam Village, Tiruchengode Taluk, Namakkal District.

3.Badmasri Lakshmi D/o.Late Kumanan, Residing At, D.No.376, Salem Main Road, Komarapalayam Village, Tiruchengode Taluk, Namakkal District.

4.N.Revathi W/o.Natarajaperumal, Kalaimagal Street, Komarapalayam Village, Tiruchengode Taluk, Namakkal District.

5.G. Nirmala W/o.Gunasekaran, Rottary Nagar, Pallipalayam Road, Komarapalayam Village, Tiruchengode Taluk, Namakkal Dt. Respondent(s)

PRAYER To set aside the judgment and decree dated 04.07.2018 made in A.S.No.7 of 2015 on the file of the Additional District Court, Namakkal confirming the judgment and decree dated 30.08.2013 made in O.S.No. 217 of 2008 on the file of the sub Court, Tiruchengode.

For Appellant(s): Mr.N.Palanikumar For Mr.D.Gopal For Respondent(s): Mr.B.Mohan For R1 To R3 Mr.S.Shanmugam For R4 & R5 Mr.R.Vivek, Advocate Commissioner

ORDER

Challenging the concurrent findings of the Courts below, the second defendant has preferred the present appeal.

2. This Court admitted the Second Appeal on 26.11.2025 and framed the following Substantial Questions of Law for consideration:

“ Whether the Courts below are correct in granting the relief of partition to the plaintiffs by moulding the relief without any such prayer or pleading?”

3. Before the Trial Court, the plaintiffs, namely respondents 1 to 3, filed a suit for partition claiming one-fourth share in the suit properties. The said suit was contested by the second defendant, contending that the house property was purchased by his father, K. Vengatesan, in the year 1974 and that the house was constructed while he was carrying on a textile business. Due to losses incurred in the business, outstanding debts of nearly Rs.5,00,000/- remained at the time of his father’s death.

4. According to the second defendant, the said amount was discharged by him and by his brother, Kumanan, who was the husband of the first plaintiff. The husband of the first plaintiff later died, leaving behind the plaintiffs as his legal heirs. The second defendant further contended that, pursuant to a family arrangement held in the presence of a mediator, the plaintiffs and defendants 1 and 3, who are sisters of the appellant, agreed to receive Rs.1,00,000/- each from the second defendant and to release their respective rights over the suit property. On this basis, the second defendant claimed that the plaintiffs had no right or title to seek partition, having already agreed to relinquish their shares. The second defendant further contended that the property was not divisible. He also submitted that during the pendency of the suit, release deeds dated 16.12.2004 were executed by defendants 1 and 3 in his favour, thereby conferring absolute right over the entire property, and that he alone discharged the outstanding loans.

5. By way of written statement, the plaintiffs disputed the allegations of the second defendant and reiterated their claim for one-fourth share in the suit property. The Will dated 25.09.2002 relied upon by the parties was not accepted by the Trial Court. Upon consideration of the evidence, the learned Trial Judge held that the suit property was the self-acquired property of Vengatesan, the father-in-law of the first plaintiff and the father of the deceased Kumaran and the appellant. Since release deeds were obtained from the other sharers, the Court granted a preliminary decree allotting one-fourth share to the plaintiffs. Aggrieved by the said findings, the second defendant preferred A.S. No. 7 of 2015 on the file of the Additional