Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 21083

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
T.V.THAMILSELVI, J
Rajalakshmi W/o. Late. Sriramaiya Mudhukuruki Village and Post, Berigai Via, Hosur Taluk, Krishnagiri District – Appellant
Versus
Rukmaniyamma W/o. Sankarappa No. 325/18, 3rd Cross Street, Babusab Palya, Kallanyan Nagar Post, Bangalore 47 – Respondent
SA No. 629 of 2025 | CMP.Nos.21927 & 21928 of 2025

Advocates:
For the Appellant(s): Mr.R.Jayaprakash
For the Respondent(s): Mr.J.James – R1, Mr.Vimal B.Crimson – R11

The court affirmed the principle of providing a fair opportunity for parties to present evidence in cases of partition and property claims.

Headnote:This judgment addresses the Second Appeal filed under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure challenging the concurrent findings of two lower courts regarding property rights and partition claims. The plaintiff sought partition of ancestral properties and claimed entitlement to a share, while the defendants contended the properties are not joint family assets and argued the validity of recent transactions. The court remanded the case for fresh evaluation at the trial level while imposing costs on the appellants.

Table of Content
1. plaintiff claims entitlement due to ancestral right. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. defendants contest joint family property claim. (Para 4 , 5)
3. court framed issues for trial. (Para 6 , 7)
4. defendants argue ex parte decisions hindered evidence. (Para 8 , 9)
5. court remands for retrial to ensure fairness. (Para 10 , 11)
6. final order remanded with cost. (Para 12)

JUDGMENT

Challenging the concurrent findings of the Courts below, the defendants 1 to 6 and 8 to 10 have filed the present Second Appeal.

2. The plaintiff had filed the suit for partition and for allotment of 7/36th share in the suit properties to the plaintiff and for separate possession, for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from creating any encumbrance of the suit properties and for declaration to declare that the sale deeds dated 23.12.1996, 03.10.2005, 20.01.2006, 12.07.2007 and 14.06.2012 as null and void.

3. The case of the plaintiff is that the suit properties are ancestral properties and the first defendant, plaintiff, Sri Ramayya, defendants 6 to 8 are jointly enjoying the properties. The said Sri Ramayya died on 17.04.2006 and his legal heirs are the defendants 2 to 5. The 9th and 10th defendants are the legal heirs of the deceased 8th defendant. During the life time of the said Sri Ramayya, he acted as a kartha of the joint family properties and managed the suit properties and gave magasool to the plaintiff. After his demise, the defendants 1 to 10 had refused to give magasool to the plaintiff and hence, the plaintiff filed the suit for partition. Further the first defendant refused to partition the suit properties and the defendants 1 to 10 have sold the suit properties to the defendants 11 to 17. Hence, the plaintiff has filed the suit for aforesaid reliefs.

4. It is the contention of the defendants 1, 2, 6, 8 to 10 that the suit properties are not joint family properties and the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit property. The sale deeds were executed only for the purpose of the marriage of the plaintiff's daughter and therefore the said documents bind the plaintiff and the defendants are in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties and the plaintiff has no share in the suit properties.

5. It is the contention of the defendants 9 and 10 that some of the properties wee sold with the consent and knowledge of the plaintiff. The contention of the defendants 11 and 12 is that the plaintiff was given share in the joint family properties before 35 years when she was married and therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to any share in the suit property. It is the contention of the defendants 18 and 19 is that they had purchased the property from the defendants 1 to 5 for valid sale consideration and they are bonafide purchasers and therefore, the sale deed binds the plaintiff. Hence, the defendants sought for dismissal of the suit as the suit is not maintainable.

6. On the basis of the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues :

1. Whether the suit properties are joint family properties as stating by the plaintiff in the plaint?

2. Whether there is no partition between the parties in respect of the suit properties?

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a share in the suit properties, if so, how much she is entitled to?

4. To what other relief, the parties are entitled?

Additional Issues :

1. Whether the defendants 18 and 19 are bonafide purchasers?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the declaration that the sale deeds are null and void as prayed for?

7. During the course of trial, on the side of the plaintiff, P.W.1 was examined and Ex.A1 to A10 were marked. On the side of the defendants, no witness was examined, only Ex.B.1 has been marked on their side.

8. The appellants are the defendants 1 to 6 and 8 to 10 in the suit. The \

8^th appellant is the legal heir of the 8^th defendant. Before the trial Court, the appellants have not appeared and they remained exparte. In the suit, preliminary decree for partition wit

Click Here to Read the rest of this document