IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 13-03-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SOUNTHAR P.Sathyamoorthy S/o Pannerselvam N.24, Pilliyar Koil St., Poonamallee Village And Post, Chennai 56.

..Appellant(s)

Vs

1. Rajeshwari, W/o Pannersselvam

2. Dasaradhan, S/o Paneerselvam Both Respondents are residing At No 4/14, First Main Road, Thirumal Nagar Poonamallee Village And Post, Chennai 56.

..Respondent(s)

Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section100 of CPC to set aside the Judgement and Decree in A.S.No.21/2018, on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Court, Tiruvallur at Poonamallee dated 31.10.2019 confirming the Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.1/2009, on the file of the Subordinate Court Poonamallee dated 25.01.2018.

For Appellant(s): Ms.V.Srimathi For Respondent(s): M/s.P.B.Ramanujam & Associates

JUDGMENT

The unsuccessful plaintiff is the appellant herein. The appellant filed a suit for partition claiming 1/3 share in the suit property and the same was dismissed by the Trial Court. The findings of the Trial Court were affirmed by the first appellate Court. Challenging the concurrent findings of the courts below, the appellant/plaintiff has come before this court.

2. According to the appellant/plaintiff, the first defendant is his mother and the 2^nd defendant is his brother. According to the plaintiff, the suit property was purchased by his deceased father Panneerselvam, in the name of his mother, the first defendant, by utilising the funds generated by selling the ancestral properties. Therefore, according to him, the suit property acquired character of ancestral property. Thus, he claimed 1/3 share in the suit property. It is further stated by the plaintiff that, the first defendant executed a settlement deed in favour of the 2^nd defendant, settling the entire property, however, according to the plaintiff, the settlement deed will not binding his 1/3 share. Therefore, instant suit has been filed by the plaintiff seeking partition as mentioned above.

3. The first defendant filed a written statement and contended that the suit property was purchased by her by selling her jewels. The averments made in the plaint that the suit property was purchased by selling the ancestral properties had been specifically denied. It was also stated that the building in the suit property was raised in the year 1986 from the chit amount of the first defendant and also out of contribution by the 2^nd defendant by selling jewels. Thus, it was the case of the first defendant that the suit property is the self acquired property of the first defendant and she had every right to execute the settlement deed in favour of her son, the 2^nd defendant. On these pleadings, the defendants seek dismissal of the suit.

4. Before the Trial Court, the plaintiff was examined as PW1 and five documents were marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A5. On the side of the defendants, the first defendant was examined as DW1 and 7 documents ere marked as Ex.B1 to Ex.B7.

5. The trial court on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the plaintiff failed to prove that the suit property was purchased out of joint family funds and dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff preferred an appeal in A.S.No.21 of 2018 on the file of II Additional District Judge, Thiruvallur at Poonamallee. The first appellate court affirmed the findings of the Trial Court. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings of the courts below, the plaintiff has come before this court.

6. At the time of admission, this court formulated the following substantial questions of law.

i) Whether the lower appellate court was right in dismissing I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2019 seeking amendment of the plaint, more so, when it was challenged that the properties proposed to be added are ancestral properties of the family?

ii) Whether the lower appellate court was right in concluding that the plaintiff has not established that the property that was purchased in the name of the first