Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 31495
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.SOUNTHAR, J
Saraswathi (died) Jothimani N.Shanmugasundaram – Appellant
Versus
M.Nanjammal – Respondent
C.M.P.No.5326 of 2024|SA.No.416 of 2021|A.S.No.41 of 2017|O.S.No.45 of 2006
For Appellants : Mr.Adinarayana Rao
For Respondents:No Appearance for R1 to R14 Insufficient Address for R15 & R16
Admissions in pleadings establish title; unproduced settlement deed fails against joint patta evidence in partition suit.
Headnote:The suit property originally belonged to the common ancestor Periyasamy, who had five sons and three daughters. Plaintiffs, representing legal heirs, sought 6/7th share upon his death under principles of joint family property inheritance. Trial court decreed partition, confirmed on first appeal, finding defendants' admissions established title in Periyasamy absent produced settlement deed. Courts relied on joint patta (Ex.A5) evidencing joint possession of heirs. Issues framed: Whether plaintiffs proved property belonged to Periyasamy and entitlement to partition despite claimed settlement. Ratio: Admissions in pleadings that property belonged to Periyasamy and reliance on unproduced settlement deed bind defendants; settled law that admitted facts need not be proved; joint patta corroborates joint heir possession post-death. Second appeal dismissed, confirming concurrent decrees for partition in plaintiffs' favour.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts of partition suit, ancestry, claims, and evidence (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 2. appellants challenge proof of title and patta (Para 11 , 12) |
| 3. admissions bind; unproduced deed fails (Para 13) |
| 4. no substantial question; appeal dismissed (Para 15) |
J U D G M E N T
The unsuccessful defendants are the appellants.
2. The respondents herein filed a suit seeking partition. The suit was decreed by the trial Court. The first appeal filed by the defendants was also dismissed. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings, the defendants have come before this Court.
3. According to the respondents/plaintiffs, the suit property originally belonged to one Periyasamy, is common ancestor of the plaintiffs and the defendants. He had five sons and three daughters namely (i) P.Venkitusamy, (ii) P.Subbian, (iii) P.Somasundaram, (iv) P.Ramasamy, (v) P.Arumugham, (vi) Nallammal (vii) Nanjammal and (viii) Saraswathy.
4. It is further stated that after death of Periyasamy, the instant suit has been filed seeking 1/7th share to each of legal heirs of Periyasamy. The 'plaintiffs' represents six children of Periyasamy. Therefore, the decree was sought for allotment of 6/7th share in favour of the plaintiffs.
5. The second defendant filed a written statement and the same was adopted by the first defendant. In the written statement, the defendants denied the allegation in the plaint that the suit property was the property of Periyasamy.
6. It was also stated that the defendants 1 and 2 have been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property for several decades without any interruption whatsoever and therefore, the plaintiffs were not entitled to claim any share in the suit property.
7. In the additional written statement filed by the second defendant and adopted by defendants 1 and 3, it was stated that the suit property absolutely belonged to Periyasamy, who is none other than the maternal grandfather of the second defendant.
8. It was also stated during lifetime of Periyasamy, he executed a settlement deed dated 05.12.1966 settling the suit property in favour of the first defendant. It was also claimed that from the date of execution of the settlement deed in favour of first defendant, she has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property and plaintiffs have no right over the same. It was also stated that the patta in the name of plaintiffs will not confer any title and therefore they sought for dismissal of the suit.
9. Before the trial Court, the 13th plaintiff Velusamy was examined as PW.1 and eleven documents were marked on the side of the plaintiffs as Exs.A1 to A11. On behalf of the defendant, first defendant was examined as DW.1 and ten documents were marked as Exs.B1 to B10.
10. Based on the evidence available on record, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the suit property belonged to Periyasamy and on his death, his children are entitled to equal share. Accordingly, the suit was decreed as prayed for. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants 1 to 3 filed an appeal in A.S.No.41 of 2017 on the file of the First Additional District Court, Coimbatore. The First Appellate Court confirmed the findings of the trial Court. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings, the defendants have come before this Court.
11. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants would contend that the plaintiffs who claimed that the property originally belonged to Periyasamy failed to lead in any evidence to show that the property belonged to said Periyasamy and therefore, the courts below committed an error in decreeing the suit as prayed for.
12. The learned counsel also submitted that though the Courts below relied on Ex.A5-Joint patta issued in the name of plaintiffs and the defendants, it failed to see that the defendants have already taken steps to set aside the patta wrongly issued in the name of the plaintiffs and the defendants.
13. It is seen from the additional written statement filed by second respondent and the defendants 1 and 3
