IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 26.11.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. DHANABAL

S.A . No . 509 of 20 15

and

M.P.No.1 of 2015

Jayanthi ... Appellant

Vs.

1.Ramayammal

2.Lakshmanan Reddy

3.K.Palanisamy

4.Sakthivel ... Respondents Prayer : Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code 1908, to allow the second appeal and setting aside the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, Bhavani dated 17.11.2014 in A.S.No.23 of 2013 confirming the judgment and decree of the learned Principal District Munsif, Bhavani, Erode District dated 21.06.2013 in

O.S.No.357 of 2009 and to decree the said suit as prayed for.

For Appellant : M/s.L.Meenakshi

for Mr.M.Dinesh

For Respondents : Mr.J.Manikandan

for

Mr.R.Marudhachalamurthy

[R2 to R4]

*****

JUDGMENT

This second appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the decree and judgment dated 17.11.2014 passed by the first appellate Court in A.S.No.23 of 2013 on the file of the Sub-ordinate Judge, Bhavani, confirming the decree and judgment dated 21.06.2013 in O.S.No.357 of

2009 on the file of Principal District Munsif, Bhavani.

2. The case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court is that the suit properties originally belonged to one Lakshma Reddy and his two sons, namely Ramasamy Reddy and Duraisamy @ Kandasamy Reddy. The said Ramasamy Reddy is the paternal grandfather of the plaintiff. The first defendant is the mother of the plaintiff, the second defendant is his brother, and the third defendant is the proposed purchaser of the suit property. Lakshma Reddy and his two sons effected a partition of the ancestral properties under a registered partition deed dated 04.06.1927. As per the said partition deed, the B-schedule property was allotted to the plaintiff’s grandfather, Ramasamy Reddy.

2.1. It is the further case of the plaintiff that Ramasamy Reddy was addicted to alcohol and was leading a wayward life. Therefore, his mother, Ponnammal, and his wife, Nagammal, decided to execute a sale deed in favour of Nagammal’s brother, Mannar Reddy, with a view to safeguarding the property. Accordingly, a sale deed dated 06.04.1937 was executed in favour of Mannar Reddy. Though the sale deed stood in the name of Mannar Reddy, it was never acted upon and, according to the plaintiff, was only a sham and nominal document. Taking advantage of the said sale deed, Mannar Reddy executed a Will dated 22.04.1982 bequeathing the suit properties in favour of his grandson, Lakshmana Reddy, who is the second defendant. The plaintiff contends that the said Will is invalid and not binding on him.

2.2. The plaintiff further states that he came to know about the above transactions only after the first defendant filed a suit in O.S.No.284 of 2005. Consequently, the plaintiff filed O.S.No.357 of 2009 seeking to declare the sale deed dated 06.04.1937 as sham and nominal, to declare the Will dated 22.04.1982 as null and void, to grant partition of the plaintiff’s 4/9 share in the suit properties, and to grant permanent injunction restraining alienation of the suit properties.

3. The brief averments of the written statement filed by the second defendant before the trial Court are as follows:

3.1. The suit is false, frivolous, vexatious, and not maintainable either in law or on facts. The plaintiff is put to strict proof of all allegations made in the plaint, except those that are specifically admitted herein. The averments that the suit property originally belonged to Lakshma Reddy and his two sons, namely Ramasamy Reddy and Duraisamy @ Kandhasamy Reddy; that the properties were partitioned under a deed dated 04.06.1927; that the B-schedule property was allotted to Ramasamy Reddy; that a sham and nominal sale deed was executed in favour of Mannar Reddy on account of Ramasamy Reddy being a drunkard; and that the subsequent Will bequeathing the suit property in favour of the second defendant is invalid, are all denied as false and incorrect.

3.2. The plaintiff has not approached this Court with cl