Natarajan ... 1St Defendant / 1St vs Gopalakrishnan
2021 Latest Caselaw 15463 Mad

                                                                           S.A.(MD)No.18 of 2014

                          BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                              DATED: 02.08.2021

                                                    CORAM:

                              THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

                                             S.A.(MD)No.18 of 2014
                                                     and
                                             M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2014


                   Natarajan                ... 1st Defendant / 1st Appellant / Appellant

                                                    -Vs-


                   1.Gopalakrishnan
                   2.Dhanalakshmi (Died)
                   3.Pushpavalli            ... Plaintifff / Respondents / Respondents
                   4.Krishnamoorthy         ... 2nd Defendant / 2nd Appellant / Respondent
                   5.Kanagavalli            ... 4th Defendant / Appellant / Respondent
                   6.Gnanasekaran
                   7.Selvakumar
                   8.Balamani
                    (Respondents 6 to 8 are suo motu impleaded as Lrs of
                      the deceased R2 vide order dated 23.07.2021)
                   9.G.Thangamani
                   10.G.Sasikumar
                     (R9 and R10 are suo motu impleaded as Lrs of
                      one Goplaakrishnan @ Gopal who is one of hte Lrs of
                      the deceased R2 vide order dated 23.07.2021)
                   11.Lakshmanan
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/


                   1/5
                                                                                S.A.(MD)No.18 of 2014

                   12.Saraswathi Manikandan
                       (R11 & R12 are suo motu impleaded as Lrs of one Malarkodi
                       who is one of the Lrs of the deceased R2 vide order dated 23.07.2021)


                   PRAYER: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure
                   Code, against the judgment and decree dated 23.08.2005 in A.S.No.21 of
                   2003 on the file of the District Judge, Karur, confirming the judgment and
                   decree made in O.S.No.252 of 1996 on the file of the Sub Court, Karur,
                   dated 31.01.2003.


                                         For Appellant        : Mr.V.Balaji
                                         For R1 to R3
                                         & R6 to R12       : Mr.Maric Vinole
                                         For R4 & R5        : Mr.R.Murali


                                                      JUDGMENT

Heard the learned counsel on either side.

2. This second appeal arises out of a partition suit. The suit property

belonged to one Vadamalai Pillai. He passed away on 20.04.1980 leaving

behind his wife Akilambal and sons Gopalakrishnan, Natarajan and

Krishnamoorthy and daughters Dhanalakshmi and Pushpavalli. There is no

dispute that Vadamalaipillai died intestate. Therefore, the suit property has

to devolve in equal shares on all his legal heirs. The plaintiffs who are

three in number are none other than the son and daughters of late Vadamalai https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

S.A.(MD)No.18 of 2014

Pillai. The first and second defendant are the sons of Vadamalaipillai. The

3rddefendant is the wife of Vadamalaipillai. The fourth defendant is the wife

of Natarajan and she has no share in the suit items. The trial Judge, vide

judgment and decree dated 31.01.2003 had granted 1/6th share to each of the

six legal heirs. The same has been confirmed by the first appellate Court

vide judgment and decree dated 23.08.2005 in A.S.No.21 of 2003 on the

file of the District Judge, Karur. Questioning the same, this second appeal

has been filed by the first defendant.

3. Though the learned counsel appearing for the appellant reiterated

all the contentions set out in the memorandum of grounds, I am of the view

that no substantial question of law arises for consideration. There is no

dispute that the suit property belongs to Vadamalaipillai. He died intestate.

Therefore, the property will devolve in equal shares on all the six legal

heirs. The Courts below allotted only 1/6th share in favour of each of the

legal heirs. It does not call for any interference. The second appeal is

dismissed.

4.It is now stated that the wife of Vadamalaipillai / D3 has passed

away. While the appellant's counsel would claim that the mother's share

had been purchased by the appellant in Court auction, the learned counsel https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

S.A.(MD)No.18 of 2014

for the respondents would state that it is not so. I do not want to go into the

said controversy. How the Akilambal's share has devolved can be worked

out in the final decree proceedings in accordance with law. The second

appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous

petition is closed.

02.08.2021

Internet : Yes/No Index : Yes/No rmi

To

1.The District Judge, Karur.

2.The Sub Court, Karur.

3.The Section Officer, Vernacular Records, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

G.R.SWAMINATHAN.J.,

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

S.A.(MD)No.18 of 2014

rmi

Judgment made in S.A.(MD)No.18 of 2014 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2014

02.08.2021

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