R.Raja Mansingh (died) S/o Late P.Rajarathinam, R.Raja Beerpal (died) S/o Late P.Rajarathinam, Pankajam W/o. Late.P. Raja Mansingh, R. Rajavasanthi, D/o. Late. R. Raja Mansingh, R.Raja Illangovan,S/o. Late. R. Raja Mansingh, R. Raja Priya, D/o. Late. R. Raja Mansingh, R.Lingeswari, W/o late R.Raja Beerpal, R.Gandhimathi, W/o R.Ravichandran, R.Pushpalatha D/o late R.Raja Beerpal, R.Rajashekari, W/o Jayasundar, R.Rajasekar, S/o late R.Raja Beerpal vs R..Rajeswari (died), W/o T.Ramsingh, R.Rajamani, W/o D.Panja, Vedhanayagi, W/o. Santhosh Kumar, Poongodi.M, W/o. Manivannan, Tirupurasundari.R W/o. Pugazendhi, Indira Thirumalai W/o. Thirumalai

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 21372

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. Sathish Kumar, R. Sakthivel, JJ
R.Raja Mansingh (died) S/o Late P.Rajarathinam, R.Raja Beerpal (died) S/o Late P.Rajarathinam, Pankajam W/o. Late.P. Raja Mansingh, R. Rajavasanthi, D/o. Late. R. Raja Mansingh, R.Raja Illangovan,S/o. Late. R. Raja Mansingh, R. Raja Priya, D/o. Late. R. Raja Mansingh, R.Lingeswari, W/o late R.Raja Beerpal, R.Gandhimathi, W/o R.Ravichandran, R.Pushpalatha D/o late R.Raja Beerpal, R.Rajashekari, W/o Jayasundar, R.Rajasekar, S/o late R.Raja Beerpal – Appellant
Versus
R..Rajeswari (died), W/o T.Ramsingh, R.Rajamani, W/o D.Panja, Vedhanayagi, W/o. Santhosh Kumar, Poongodi.M, W/o. Manivannan, Tirupurasundari.R W/o. Pugazendhi, Indira Thirumalai W/o. Thirumalai – Respondent

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Elizabeth Ravi
For the Respondents: R1-died Mr. N.C.Thirumalai Balaji

Table of Content
1. facts of the case regarding property ownership and family relations. (Para 3 , 4)
2. arguments from appellants and respondents regarding property ownership. (Para 8 , 9)
3. court's ratio on oral partition and proof requirements. (Para 10 , 16)
4. court's observations on burden of proof and family arrangements. (Para 13 , 14 , 17)
5. final ruling of the court confirming the trial court's decision. (Para 19)

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by N.Sathish Kumar J.)

Challenging the decree and judgment of the Trial Court granting a preliminary decree holding that the plaintiffs are each entitled to1/4^th share in the suit property and also granting permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the unsold property to the third parties, the present appeal has been filed by the unsuccessful defendants.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Trial Court.

3. The brief facts of the case of the plaintiffs are as follows :-

The suit property was originally purchased by one Salammal vide sale deed dated 23.03.2017. Her only son is Rajarathinam, who is the father of the plaintiffs and the defendants. The

Click Here to Read the rest of this document