Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
V. Ramasubramanian, J.
M. Kadirvelu and others - Appellants
Versus
G. Santhanalakshmi and others - Respondents
A.S. No. 40 of 2001 and C.M.P. No. 4748 of 2001
Decided On : 15-04-2016
Hindu Succession Act - Section 4 - Hindu Succession Act and provisions of Pondicherry (Extension of Laws) Regulation, 1963 - Pondicherry Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act - Section 37(2) – Death - Suit for partition and separate possession of - Plaintiff also claimed that co-sharers of suit properties effected amicable partition of some of lands under a registered deed that plaintiffs father agreed for dividing the lands covered by partition deed into shares instead of shares out of sympathetic consideration that out of those shares were given to sons and shares were given to sons of that suit properties ever remained in joint possession and hence branch of is entitled to half share and branch is entitled to other half share - Held, Appellants then set up a plea of ouster in respect of house described as item-A of plaint schedule - But second defendant who is first appellant herein and sixth defendant who is third appellant admitted in their evidence as D.W.1 and D.W.5 that eastern portion was in occupation of second defendant and that western portion was in occupation of defendants - But deposition of eleventh defendant examined as D.W.2 did not support case of other defendants - Therefore plea of ouster was rightly rejected by Trial Court and find that same was justified on facts as well as in law - Appeal dismissed.
V. Ramasubramanian, J.
This appeal arises out of a preliminary decree for partition.
2. I have heard Mr. A. Rajkumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, Mr. T.V. Ramanujam, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents 1, 6, 21 to 27, 29, 30 and 34, Ms. S. Hemalatha, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent and Mr. V. Anand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 31 to 33 and 35 to 38.
3. The defendants 2, 3, 6 and 7 are the appellants herein. The first respondent herein filed a suit for partition and separate possession of her ?th share in the suit properties and for the grant of mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month in relation to her share of income, apart from an award for future mesne profits at 6 kalams of paddy per annum for the wet lands and Rs. 10/- per annum for the dry lands.
4. The case of the first respondent/plaintiff was as follows :
(i) One Tandayuda Appasamy Pillai, who owned the suit properties, died leaving behind three sons namely (1) T. Krishnasamy Pillai (2) Cadirvelu Pillai (a) Cailassam Pillai and (3) Venugopal Pillai (a) Cojandavelu Pillai.
(ii) The eldest son T. Krishnasamy Pillai, who died in the year 1923, had a wife by name Mangayarkarasy and a son and a daughter respectively by name Appasamy (a) Cannayen and Maragatham. The second son Cadirvelu Pillai (a) Cailassam Pillai, who died in the year 1956, had five sons by name (1) Murugasamy (a) Murugesan (2) Raja (a) Balasubramanian (3) Ranga (a) Ranganathan (4) Gobalakrishnan (a) Gobalou and (5) Purushothaman (a) Balaraman. The third son Venugopal Pillai (a) Cojandavelu Pillai had three sons by name (1) Appasamy (a) Tandapany Pillai (2) Ramassamy Pillai (a) Ganesane and (3) Arunasalam (a) Nandagopal Pillai.
(iii) The plaintiff - Santhanalakshmi was the daughter of Appasamy (a) Tandapany Pillai, who was one of the three sons of Venugopal Pillai, son of the common ancestor - Tandayuda Appasamy Pillai.
(iv) The wife and children of Murugasamy (a) Murugesan, who was one of the five sons of Cadirvelu Pillai (a) Cailassam Pillai, son of the common ancestor - Tandayuda Appasamy Pillai were arrayed as defendants 1 to 4.
(v) The wife and children of Raja (a) Balasubramanian, son of Cadirvelu Pillai (a) Cailassam Pillai were arrayed as defendants 5 to 10.
(vi) The wife of Ranga (a) Ranganathan, son of Cadirvelu Pillai (a) Cailassam Pillai was arrayed as the 11th defendant.
(vii) The wife and children of the fourth son of Cadirvelu Pillai (a) Cailassam Pillai were arrayed as defendants 12 to 18.
(viii) The wife and children of the fifth son of Cadirvelu Pillai (a) Cailassam Pillai were arrayed as defendants 19 to 23.
(ix) The wife and children of Venugopal Pillai's second son by name Ramassamy Pillai (a) Ganesane were arrayed as defendants 24 to 33.
(x) The wife and children of Venugopal Pillai's third son - Arunasalam (a) Nandagopal Pillai were arrayed as defendants 34 to 41.
(xi) In other words, the suit was instituted by a person belonging to one among the three representing one out of three branches of the family of Tandayuda Appasamy Pillai. But, nevertheless, one out of the three branches of the family of Tandayuda Appasamy Pillai perished without leaving any legal heir.
(xii) Consequently, the plaintiff claimed that the two branches of Tandayuda Appasamy Pillai, one represented by the legal heirs of Cadirvelu Pillai (a) Cailassam Pillai and the other represented by the legal heirs of Venugopal Pillai, were each entitled to ½ share of the properties left behind by Tandayuda Appasamy Pillai. Since Venugopal Pillai, who inherited one half of the properties of Tandayuda Appasamy Pillai, had three sons, each son became entitled to ?rd share of the half share of Venugopal Pillai. In other words, Appasamy (a) Tandapany Pillai, Ramassamy Pillai (a) Ganesane and Arunasalam (a) Nandagopal Pillai, who were the three sons of Venugopal Pillai, each became entitled to ?rd share of what was inherited by Venugopal Pillai. This is
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
