Tamilarasi W/o.Late Senthilkumar vs Kolanjiyappan S/o.Arunachalam

Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 20844

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
T.V.THAMILSELVI, J
Tamilarasi W/o.Late Senthilkumar – Appellant
Versus
Kolanjiyappan S/o.Arunachalam – Respondent
CMP NO. 32857 OF 2025 | AS.No.7 of 2024 | IA.No.2 of 2021 | OS.No.116 of 2010

Important Points

A court may remand matters for reconsideration of property division if initial allotments are deemed inequitable among heirs.

Subject

Civil - Property Dispute

Act Referred

Code of Civil Procedure: S.100

Headnote

The second appeal was filed under Sec.100 of C.P.C. against a final decree deemed improper in the proceedings of IA.No.2 of 2021 in OS.No.116 of 2010. The court upheld the contention that the improper share allotment among the heirs necessitated revisiting the division of property initially set forth. The issues revolved around the fairness of property division among heirs and the statutory requirements for equitable distribution. The court concluded by remitting the matter to the trial court for re-evaluation of property shares, providing a timeline of twelve weeks for completion.

Advocates:
For the Appellant(s): Mr.S.Senthilnathan
For the Respondent(s): Mr.S.Muthukrishnan, Mr.S.Kamadevan, Mr.J.Abdul Hadi

Table of Content
1. challenges to property division in trial court. (Para 1)
2. objections regarding inequitable share allotment. (Para 2 , 3)

Judgment

Challenging the final decree passed by the trial court in I.A.No.2 of 2021 in O.S.No.116 of 2010, the appellant/7^th defendant preferred this Second Appeal. According to the appellant, shares allotted in the final decree proceedings is improper in nature.

2. Today when the matter taken up for hearing, this Court already suggested for settlement, at that time, the plaintiff, who is the 1^st respondent herein raised objections stating that already sufficient property was given to her and she had sold some of the items, which was rightly considered by the Advocate Commissioner while suggesting division. It was also considered by the courts below while allotting shares. Therefore, the objections raised by the appellant as such is unsustainable one. Hence, he raised objections.

3. In respect of 2^nd respondent, who mother of 1^st respondent, learned counsel appeared. But, the learned counsel for respondents 3 and 4 have no objection with regard to division and allotment made in the final decree proceedings. The only objection with regard to inequal allotment of her share, the learned counsel pointed out that the 1^st respondent allotted the entire extent of property in Survey No.295/3, which is very much adjacent to Chennai- Kumbakonam National Highways, in that property, no share was allotted to the appellant, who is the wife of Senthilkumar, brother of 1^st respondent.

3. Admittedly, the said Senthilkumar suffered with kidney failure, for which she met out medical expenses, for that purpose, she was forced to sell some of the property along with her mother-in-law Dhanalakshmi, 2^nd respondent. As on date, she is standing before the court objecting the division of property. Considering that, the valuable property exclusively allotted to the 1^st respondent as well as sisters, which requires interference as it is not fair. No reason was assigned nor given share to this petitioner in that property, hence, it requires interference. The suit was filed in the year 2010 and all the parties standing before the court. Therefore, this court is inclined to remit back the matter to the trial court only with regard to the fresh division of property as per the preliminary decree. Twelve weeks time is granted to the trial court to dispose of the said final decree proceedings by giving reference to this court. Accordingly, earlier finding is set aside and this Second Appeal is disposed of.

No costs. Consequently, connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed.