IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS RESERVED ON : 11.11.2025 PRONOUNCED ON : 06.02.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI S.A. No.265 of 2024 and C.M.P.No.8224 of 2024

1.Rajalakshmi

2.Gopalakrishnan 3.Renuka Easwari

4.Swaminathan … Appellants Vs.

Prema … Respondent Prayer: This Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the code of Civil Procedure, against the Judgment and Decree dated 15.12.2023 in A.S.No.19 of 2022 on the file of the learned District Judge, Mayiladuthurai in reversing the Judgment and Decree dated 12.11.2021 in O.S.No.173 of 2015 on the file of the learned Principal Sub-Ordinate Judge, Mayiladuthurai.

For Appellants : Mr.A.Muthukumar For R1 to R3 : Mr.K.Elango

JUDGMENT

This Second Appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated

15.12.2023 in A.S.No.19 of 2022 on the file of the learned District Judge, Mayiladuthurai in reversing the Judgment and Decree dated 12.11.2021 in O.S.No.173 of 2015 on the file of the learned Principal Sub-Ordinate Judge, Mayiladuthurai.

2.The unsuccessful defendants are on appeal.

3.The respondent as plaintiff has filed the suit in O.S.No.173 of 2015 for partition and separate possession of half share in the suit property. Her specific case is that the suit property belonged to her mother, Janaki Ammal who purchased the same under registered sale deed dated 10.06.1963. Apart from the plaintiff, the said Janaki Ammal had three sons. The two sons of Janaki Ammal died prior to the death of Janaki ammal. The said Janaki Ammal died on 28.10.1994 survived by the plaintiff and her brother Ravindra raj, husband of the 1^st defendant and father of the defendants 2 to 4. After the demise of Ravindra raj in the year 2008, she demanded for a partition and the same was refused by the defendants. Hence, the plaintiff was constrained to file the above suit for partition.

4.The claim of the plaintiff was resisted by the defendant stating that under the sale deed dated 10.06.1963, the said Janaki Ammal had purchased only 2280 sq. ft., where as, the plaintiff has laid the partition suit for an extent of 3743 sq. ft. After the demise of Janaki Ammal on 28.10.1994, her son Ravindra raj became the absolute owner of the suit property by paying taxes to the property for more than 20 years. Neither the plaintiff nor her mother Janaki Ammal were in joint possession over the suit property. The claim of the plaintiff is extinguished. Further, the defendants 2 to 4 have released their shares in favour of the 1^st defendant by virtue of a release deed dated 20.06.2011 and from then onwards the 1^st defendant was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the suit property till she executed a settlement deed on 07.08.2014 in favour of her daughter namely the 3^rd defendant in the suit. Thereafter, the 3^rd defendant has obtained patta in her favour and also built a RCC roofed building in the suit property. Therefore, the 3^rd defendant is the absolute owner of the suit property in which the plaintiff is not entitled for any share and prayed for dismissal of the suit.

5.The trial Court based on the materials on record, dismissed the suit, against which the plaintiff preferred the appeal suit in A.S.No.19 of 2022. The First Appellate Court reversed the judgment and decree of the trial Court, decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by this, the defendants have preferred the present second appeal.

6.This second appeal is admitted on the following questions of law:

a. When the plaintiff has not assigned any reason in the plaint for not filing the suit for more than 19 years after succession opened on the death of her mother, Janaki Ammal, whether the First Appellate Court erred in law in holding that the plaintiff is entitled to partition despite her long inaction contrary to the judgment of this Court ans reported in 2010 (6)

MLJ 351?

7.Mr.A.Muthukumar, the learned counsel for the appellants/defendants would submit that the plaintiff has filed the above suit for partition after lapse