2026:MHC:158 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 07-01-2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL AS No. 1113 of 2025 and CMP.No.27187 of 2025

1. A. Murali

2. A. Prasanna

3. A. Harish

4. Manjamma Appellant(s)

Vs

1. G. Kullamma

2.Venkatalakshmamma Respondent(s) PRAYER: Appeal filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to set aside the Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.161 of 2019 dated 31.07.2025 passed by the Additional District Judge at Hosur.

For Appellant(s): Mr.M.Selvam

JUDGMENT

(Order of the Court was made by N.Sathish Kumar J.)

Challenging the preliminary decree declaring 1/3^rd share of the property in favor of the plaintiff and the declaration declaring the gift deeds in favour of Anjapa and the fourth defendant dated 19.11.2004 as null and void, the present appeal has been filed by the unsuccessful defendants.

2. Brief facts leading to filing of this appeal are as follows:-

2.a. The suit property originally belonged to Peddha Ramasamy, who is the father of the plaintiff. Peddha Ramasasmy died on 14.11.2004 leaving behind the plaintiff, her brother Anjappa, sister Venkadalashmamma/fourth defendant as his legal heirs to succeed his estate. The said Anjappa also died in the year 2008 leaving behind the defendants 1 to 3 as his legal heirs. The suit properties are joint family properties of the plaintiff and the defendants. So far, no partition was effected in respect of the suit properties. The plaintiff is entitled to 1/3^rd share, accordingly, she approached the defendants for partition, wherein, she was shocked to know that on 22.11.2004, Lakshamma, w/o Peddha Ramasamy/mother of the plaintiff has created gift settlement deeds in Doc.Nos.1826 and 1825 of 2004 on the file of the SRO, Shoolagiri in favour of the Anjappa and the fourth respondent in respect of some of the properties in the joint family properties. According to the plaintiff, her mother has no independent right or title over the suit schedule joint family properties. The plaintiff being the class-I legal heir had sought for partition and declaration declaring the gift deeds as null and void.

2.b. The defendants 1 to 3 filed a written statement contending that there was oral partition between the plaintiff, the fourth defendant and Peddha Ramasamy in the year 2004 and in pursuance of the same, the grandmother of the defendants 1 to 3 has executed gift deeds in favour of Anjappa and the fourth defendant. The plaintiff has taken her share by way of cash and jewels from the father of these defendants and from the date of partition, the father of these defendants and fourth defendant are enjoying the properties allotted to them in the partition. There is no joint possession as alleged by the plaintiff. Hence, it is the contention that as the father of the plaintiff died much earlier to the passing of Hindu Succession Amendment Act 39 of 2005, the plaintiff is not entitled for the benefit of the Hindu Succession Amendment Act 39/2005.

Therefore, opposed the suit.

2.c. Based on the above pleadings, the Trial Court framed the following issues:

1) Whether the contention of defendants that oral partition was effected, and it was revealed by the Gift Deeds is true?

2) Whether suit properties are the ancestral or self acquired properties of the father Pedda Ramasamy?

3) Whether suit is barred by Limitation?

4) Whether plaintiff has share in suit properties, if so, what extent?

5) Whether plaintiff entitled to Preliminary Decree as sought for?

6) Whether plaintiff entitled to declaration regarding the Gift Deeds as sought for?

7) What other reliefs?

2.d. On the side of the plaintiff, PW1 to PW3 were examined and has marked Exs.A1 to A7. On the side of the defendants, DW1 and DW2 were examined and no documents were marked on their side, and marked Exs.X-1 and X-2 through PW3.

2.e. Considering the oral and documentary evidences, the Trial Court has passed the preliminary decree declaring 1/3^rd share of the property i