A.S.No.332 of 2016

and C.M.P.No.7264 of 2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 17.10.2022

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R. HEMALATHA

A.S.No.332 of 2016

and

C.M.P.No.7264 of 2016

T.S.Narendra

... Appellant

..Vs..

1.Suseela

2. P.J. Ravikumar (deceased)

3. Padmini

4. Meera

5. Harikumar

6. Rukmani

7. R. Thara

8. R. Santhosh

... Respondents

PRAYER : First Appeal filed under Section 96 C.P.C. praying to set aside

the decree and judgment dated 26.11.2015 made in O.S.No.9129 of 2010

on the file of the II Additional City Civil Court, Chennai.

For Appellant

: Mr.N. Kumar Rajan

for M/s. Kumar and Baskar

For R5

: Mr.M. Praveen Kumar

1/11

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

A.S.No.332 of 2016

and C.M.P.No.7264 of 2016

JUDGMENT

The appellant is the plaintiff in O.S.No.9129 of 2010 on the file

of the II Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. He filed the suit for

partition of the suit property into 15 equal shares and to allot six such share

to him.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per

their ranking in the trial court and at appropriate places, their rank in the

present appeal would also be indicated.

3.The case of the plaintiff in brief is as follows:

The suit property bearing Old No.4, New No.2, Dharmaraja Koil

Street, Choolai, Chennai, measuring 401 sq.ft. within the boundaries stated

therein originally belonged to one Subbarayalu Naidu. His only son

T.S.Srinivasalu Naidu inherited the property after the death of his father

Subbarayalu Naidu during the year 1939. T.S.Srinivasalu Naidu died on

09.12.1978 leaving behind the plaintiff and the defendants as his legal

heirs. The eldest son of the deceased T.S.Srinivasalu Naidu, namely

Rajendran, embraced Christianity and also relinquished all his rights in the

2/11

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

A.S.No.332 of 2016

and C.M.P.No.7264 of 2016

suit property. The younger son of Late T.S.Srinivasalu Naidu namely

Sathendra also died during the year 2002 as a bachelor. Therefore, both

Rajendran and Sathendra are not added as parties to the present suit. The

plaintiff and the 1^st defendant are son and daughter respectively of

T.S.Srinivasalu Naidu. The defendants 2 to 4 are the sons and daughters of

deceased Ahalya who is also the daughter of T.S.Srinivasalu Naidu. The

father of the plaintiff and the 1^st defendant was in absolute possession and

enjoyment of the suit property till his death on 09.12.1978. The plaintiff

and the 5^th defendant discharged the mortgage loan obtained by

T.S.Srinivasalu Naidu during his life time. In fact the plaintiff and the 5^th

defendant spent more than Rs.1,50,000/- for safeguarding the property and

for paying taxes to the Government. Now the superstructure over the suit

property is in dilapidated condition and though the plaintiff requested the

defendants for partition of the suit property they evaded. Hence the suit.

4. The suit was resisted by the defendants on the following

grounds :

1) The suit is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary

parties.

2) It is false to contend that the plaintiff and the 5^th defendant spent

3/11

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

A.S.No.332 of 2016

and C.M.P.No.7264 of 2016

more than Rs.1,50,000/- for safeguarding the suit property and for

paying taxes to various authorities of the Government.

3) Since the 1^st defendant is one of the legal heirs of Late

T.S.Srinivasalu Naidu, she is entitled to get 1/5 share in the suit

property and similarly defendants 2 to 4 together entitled to get

another 1/5 share and the defendants 5 & 6 are entitled to 1/5 share

each in the suit property.

4) As per Section 26 of the Hindu Succession Act, where a Hindu by

conversion to another religion, children born to him / her after such

conversion and their descendants shall be disqualified from inheriting

the property of any of their Hindu relatives, unless such children or

de