Madras High Court
R.Kondalsamy vs R.Kannan on 4 August, 2021
S.A.(MD)No.424 of 2014
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 04.08.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
S.A.(MD)No.424 of 2014
and
M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2014
R.Kondalsamy ... Appellant / Appellant / Plaintiff
-Vs-
Raju Naidu(Died)
1.R.Kannan
2.V.Lakshmi
3.K.Panchavarnam ... 1 to 3 Respondents / 1 to 3 Respondents /
2 to 4 Defendants
PRAYER: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure
Code, against the judgment and decree dated 24.02.2014 passed in A.S.No.
153 of 2008 on the file of the 1st Additional Sub Court, Madurai, confirming
the judgment and decree dated 29.07.2008 passed in O.S.No.816 of 2004 on
the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Madurai Town.
For Appellants : Mr.V.Meenakshi Sundaram
for Mr.D.Nallathambi
For R1 & R2 : exparte
For R3 : Mr.T.C.S.Thillainayagam
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/5
S.A.(MD)No.424 of 2014
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff in O.S.No.816 of 2004 on the file of the Additional
District Munsif Court, Madurai Town is the appellant in this second appeal.
2. The plaintiff filed the said suit seeking the relief of partition. The
defendants in the suit were none other than the father of the plaintiff,
brother and sister. During the pendency of the suit, the suit property was
alienated by the plaintiff's father / D1 in favour of the fourth defendant. It
is not in dispute that the suit land belonged to the paternal grand mother of
the plaintiff and she settled the same in favour of the first defendant vide
Ex.A1, dated 25.06.1963.
3. The case of the plaintiff is that on the said land, a superstructure
was erected, for which, the plaintiff also substantially contributed. The
stand of the plaintiff is that the first defendant by his conduct had thrown
the suit property into common hotchpot; therefore, the suit property
became amenable for partition. The said claim was contested by the
plaintiff's father. Based on the divergent pleadings, the trial Court framed
the necessary issues. The plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and one
Kasinathan as P.W.2. Ex.A1 to Ex.A21 were marked. During the
pendency of the suit, the plaintiff's father Raju Naidu passed away. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A.(MD)No.424 of 2014
plaintiff's brother R.Kannan examined himself as D.W.1 and the alinee was
examined as D.W.2. Ex.B1 to Ex.B9 were marked. An advocate
commissioner was appointed and he submitted his report and sketch. They
were marked as Court Ex.1 and Ex.2. After consideration of the evidence
on record, the trial Court gave a categorical finding that the suit property
cannot be considered as joint family property and dismissed the suit vide
judgment and decree dated 29.07.2008. The plaintiff filed A.S.No.153 of
2008 before the first Additional Sub Court, Madurai. The first additional
Sub Court also dismissed the appeal vide judgment and decree dated
24.02.2014. Challenging the same, the second appeal came to be filed.
4. Though the second appeal was admitted by framing substantial
questions of law, I am of the view that no substantial question of law really
arises for consideration. The land on which superstructures have been
erected belonged to the plaintiff's grand mother. It was the plaintiff's grand
mother who settled the property in favour of the plaintiff's father. Though
the plaintiff referred to Ex.A2 and Ex.A3 in support of his contention that
the suit property had been treated as joint family property, the Courts below
have concurrently rendered findings against the plaintiff. Pure questions of
fact are involved. No substantial question of law really arises for
consideration. I do not find any merit in the second appeal. The second
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A.(MD)No.424 of 2014
appeal stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
petition is closed.
04.08.2021
Internet : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
rmi
To
1.The 1st Additional Sub Court, Madurai.
2. The Additional District Munsif Court, Madurai Town.
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.424 of 2014
rmi
Judgment made in
S.A.(MD)No.424 of 2014
and
M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2014
04.08.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
