IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Reserved on : 16.10.2025 Pronounced on: 23.01.2026 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE A.D.MARIA CLETE A.S.No.50 of 2018 M.Krishnamoorthi ... Appellant Vs K.Thangaraju ... Respondent PRAYER : This Appeal suit is filed under Section 96 read with Order 41 Rule 1 of C.P.C., against the judgment and decree dated 05.09.2017 passed in O.S.No.50 of 2013 on the file of the learned Additional District Judge, Namakkal.

For Appellant : Mr.S.V.Karthikeyan For Respondent : Mr.N.Manokaran

J U D G M E N T

This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated

05.09.2017 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Namakkal, in O.S.No.50 of 2013, whereby the suit filed for partition, separate possession and permanent injunction was dismissed.

2. The plaintiff filed the suit seeking (i) partition of the suit schedule property and allotment of 1/3rd share to him by passing a preliminary decree and thereafter a final decree; (ii) permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the plaintiff’s enjoyment of his alleged 1/3rd share till final partition; and (iii) costs.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to in this judgment in the same rank as they were arrayed before the Trial Court. 4. The case of the Plaintiff: The suit schedule property is situated in Namakkal District, Tiruchengode Taluk, in S.No.344, measuring an extent of about 11.94 acres, with wells, pump sets, houses and trees. The property originally belonged to three brothers, namely Sengoda Gounder (plaintiff’s grandfather), Chettiya Gounder (defendant’s grandfather) and their brother Aathi Gounder, and was enjoyed jointly without any partition.

5. It is pleaded that Aathi Gounder alienated his 1/3rd share in favour of Chettiya Gounder, as a result of which Sengoda Gounder became entitled to 1/3rd share and Chettiya Gounder to 2/3rd share in the suit property.

6. The plaintiff further states that Sengoda Gounder died about 40 years prior to the suit, whereupon his 1/3rd share devolved upon the plaintiff’s father. After the demise of the plaintiff’s father about 11 years prior to the suit, the share devolved upon the plaintiff, his mother and his brother. By a Release Deed dated 13.03.2008, the plaintiff’s mother and brother relinquished their rights in favour of the plaintiff, and thus the plaintiff claims to have become entitled to the entire 1/3rd share.

7. With regard to the defendant’s branch, it is pleaded that after the demise of Chettiya Gounder, the 2/3rd share devolved upon the defendant’s father, and by Release Deed dated 11.03.1996, the defendant’s father and brother relinquished their rights in favour of the defendant, thereby defendant vesting the entire 2/3rd share.

8. According to the plaintiff, thereafter the plaintiff and defendant continued in joint enjoyment of the suit property without partition, carrying on agriculture jointly. It is stated that certain improvements were made and that a common passage was being used for agricultural operations and movement of livestock.

9. The plaintiff alleges that about one year prior to the suit, the defendant started interfering with and obstructing the plaintiff’s peaceful enjoyment. When the plaintiff demanded partition by metes and bounds on 06.01.2013, including measurement of the lands, the defendant refused, compelling the plaintiff to file the suit.

10. The case of the Defendant: There was already an oral partition between the plaintiff and defendant on Chithirai 1, 1997, under which the land was divided and each party took separate possession and enjoyment of the portion allotted to him. It is pleaded that a common pathway was arranged, boundary stones were erected, and the parties acted upon the partition by independently developing and enjoying their respective portions.

11. The defendant relied upon circumstances such as separate residence and enjoyment, separate electricity service connections, separate borewells and payment of kist sepa