To establish ouster of a co-sharer, hostile open possession and repudiation of rights must be proven; long possession alone is insufficient. Additionally, relinquishment of immovable property valued over Rs. 100 must be executed through a registered instrument.

##PAGE1##

AS No. 963 of 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 03-03-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V. KARTHIKEYAN

AND

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR

AS No. 963 of 2025

Selvaraj

..Appellant

Vs

1. Saroja

2. Lakshmi

..Respondents

Appeal Suit filed under Section 96 read with Order XLI Rule 1 of CPC

against the Judgment and Decree dated 28.03.2025 passed in O.S.No.73 of 2021

on the file of the Principal District Court, Namakkal.

For Appellant: Mr.D.Vairamoorthy

For Respondents: Mr.C.Jagadish for R1

No appearance for R2

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by K.Rajasekar J.)

Second defendant in the suit is the appellant.

2. The plaintiff, who is the first respondent herein initiated the suit against

her brother and sister seeking partition of the suit properties on the ground that

she is also one of the co-parceners in the property which originally belonged to

__________

Page1 of 8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/03/2026 04:40:14 pm )

AS No. 963 of 2025

Nayunda Naidu and his son Ramasamy viz., the plaintiff's father. The suit was

resisted by the second defendant, who is the son of Ramasamy on the ground

that the plaintiff herein was already ousted from the property hence, she was not

entitled to claim any share in the property. Further, it was contended that the

plaintiff's father Ramasamy had already relinquished his half share in favour of

the second defendant. The plaintiff has claimed a share in the property by

invoking the Hindu Succession (amendment) Act, 2005 claiming herself as one

of the co-parceners.

3. On the pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court had framed the

following issues:-

"i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the preliminary

decree of partition to divide the suit properties into three

equal shares by metes and bounds and to allot one such share

in favour of her as prayed for?

ii) Whether the claim of the plaintiff over the suit

properties is affected by the principles of 'Ouster' as alleged

by the 2nd defendant?

iii) Whether the plaintiff is not in joint possession of the

suit properties as alleged by the 2nd defendant?

iv) To what other relief the plaintiff is entitled to?

Additional issue framed on 26.04.2022

i) Whether the 1st defendant is misjoinder of party to

__________

Page2 of 8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/03/2026 04:40:14 pm )

AS No. 963 of 2025

the suit as claimed by her?"

4. Before the Trial Court, the plaintiff examined herself as PW1 and

marked Exs.A1 to A18. Defendants 1 and 2 were examined as DWs 1 and 2

respectively. One Narayanasamy, Swaminathan, Ramalingam, Kandhasamy,

Murugesan and Selvarasu were examined as DW3 to DW8 respectively and

Exs.B1 to B4 and Ex.X1 were marked.

5. On considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court had

decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. Aggrieved against the same, the

present Appeal Suit has been filed by the second defendant.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Trial Court has not

appreciated the facts relating to relinquishment of share made by the plaintiff's

father Ramasamy in favour of the second defendant and argued that in this

regard, witnesses who had participated in the relinquishment process had been

examined. It was further argued that a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- was also paid to

Ramasamy for executing the relinquishment deed. He further submitted that the

plaintiff herein was ousted from the date of her marriage in the year 1978 and

she had not shown any interest in the property and that the second defendant

alone was in possession and enjoyment of the same continuously, peacefully,

openly and with the knowledge of the plaintiff and therefore, argued that the

judgment and decree passed in favour of the plaintiff is liable to be set aside.

7. Learned counsel for the first respondent/plaintiff submitted that though

there are pleadings to resist the suit for partition made by the second defendant,

_________