S.A.(MD).No.677 of 2021

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED : 20.06.2023

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE

S.A.(MD).No.677 of 2021

Rajeswari

... Appellant/Appellant/Plaintiff

Vs.

1.Marimuthu

2.Saroja

...Respondents/Respondents/Defendants

Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of CPC to allow the appeal

setting aside the judgment and decree of Principal Sub Court, Thenkasi in

A.S.No.87 of 2018 dated 16.10.2020 confirming the judgment and decree of

Additional District Munsif Court, Thenkasi in O.S.No.209 of 2013 dated

17.07.2018 .

For Appellant

: Mr.Sankararamasubramanian

for Mr.P.T.Thiraviam

For Respondents : Mr.I.Robert Chandrakumar

1/12

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

S.A.(MD).No.677 of 2021

JUDGMENT

This Second Appeal has been filed challenging the concurrent findings of

the Courts below. The plaintiff in the suit O.S.No.209 of 2013 on the file of the

Additional District Munsif Court, Tenkasi is the appellant herein. The

respondents are the defendants in the said suit. In the forthcoming paragraphs,

the parties are described as per their litigative status in the suit.

2. The plaintiff claims to have purchased the suit schedule property under

two sale deeds, one executed by Velliammal and her daughter Dhuraichy and

the other executed by Velu and his son Santhanakumar dated 08.02.2006 and

13.02.2006 respectively. According to the plaintiff, the defendants are the

co-owners of the suit schedule properties. It is also the case of the plaintiff that

her vendors are having half share in the suit schedule property. In such

circumstances, the plaintiff has filed a suit for partition claiming half share in

the suit schedule property. The plaintiff's vendors are the children of the first

wife of the deceased Mookan. The first defendant and Pechimuthu are the

children of the second wife of the deceased Mookan. The second defendant is

the wife of the first defendant.

2/12

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

S.A.(MD).No.677 of 2021

3. However, as seen from the written statement filed by the defendants,

they have categorically pleaded that the plaintiff does not have any share in the

suit schedule properties and the suit for partition is not maintainable without

seeking for a declaratory relief that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit

schedule property. They contend that the plaintiff is not a legal heir of the

deceased Mookan and hence, the suit for partition is not maintainable.

4. Based on the pleadings of the respective parties, the Trial Court,

namely, the Additional District Munsif Court, Tenkasi framed the following

issues:

a) Whether the suit is bad for misjoinder of parties?

b) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for half share in the suit schedule

properties?

c) To what other reliefs?

5. Before the Trial Court, the plaintiff filed four documents which were

marked as exhibits A1 to A4, the details are as follows:

Exhibits

Date

Details

Ex.A1

24.04.1946

Certified copy of the sale deed executed by

Subbammal in favour of Mookan and

Santhanathammal

3/12

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

S.A.(MD).No.677 of 2021

Ex.A2

08.02.2006

Sale deed executed by Velliammal and

Dhuraichy in favour of the plaintiff

Ex.A3

13.02.2006

Sale deed executed by Velu and

Santhanakumar in favour of the plaintiff

Ex.A4

-

Family chart

The plaintiff herself was examined as a witness (P.W.1). On the side of the

defendants, 12 documents were filed which were marked as exhibits B1 to B12,

the details are as follows:

Exhibits

Date

Details

Ex.B1

24.04.1946

Sale deed executed by Subbammal in favour

of Mookan and Santhanathammal

Ex.B2

03.02.1992

Sale deed executed by Velu in favour of the

plaintiff's husband Samuthiram

Ex.B3

-

Property tax receipts in the name of the first

defendant

Ex.B4

-

EB receipts in the name of the first defendant

Ex.B5

-

Drinking water receipts in the name of the

first defendant

Ex.B6

28.04.2003

Sale executed by Gandh