Madras High Court
P.Manickam vs Annamalai on 9 February, 2021
SA (MD) No.295 of 2016
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated: 09.02.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
S.A(MD)No.295 of 2016
and C.M.P(MD)No.3583 of 2016
P.Manickam ... Appellant/Respondent/Plaintiff
-vs-
1.Annamalai
2.Periannan
3.Annamalai ...Respondents/Appellants/Defendants
PRAYER: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code
against the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court dated 29.08.2013
passed in A.S.No. 9 of 2012 on the file of the Principal District Judge,
Pudukkottai, reversing the judgment and decree of the trial court dated
07.08.2012 passed in O.S.No.103 of 2007 on the file of the Subordinate Judge,
Pudukkottai.
For Appellant : Mr.P.Vinoth
for Mr.M.Saravanan
For R1 to R3 : Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan
1/9
http://www.judis.nic.in
SA (MD) No.295 of 2016
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff in O.S.No.103 of 2007, who was able to convince the trial
court to grant a decree for injunction subject to certain obligations on his part
upon reversal of the same on appeal in A.S.No.9 of 2012, has come up with this
Second Appeal.
2. The plaintiff has filed the suit for injunction contending that the suit
properties originally belonged to his forefather namely, Nagappa Chettiyar, who
died leaving behind his two sons Annamalai and Raman Chettiyar. The said
Annamalai had 3 sons by name Annamalai(1), Adaikalavan and Perumal.
Annamalai(1) had two sons by name Annamalai (2) and Periyannan. Adaikalavan
had a son by name Annamalai(3). Perumal's son Manickam is the plaintiff. While
Annamalai(2), Periyannan and Annamalai(3) are the defendants. It is also claimed
that Raman Chettiyar had the son by name Nagappan @ Perumal, who married
one Sinthamani Aachi. The plaintiff would claim that Nagappan @ Perumal
adopted him.
http://www.judis.nic.in
SA (MD) No.295 of 2016
3. It is the further case of the plaintiff that his adoptive father Nagappan @
Perumal died in the year 1974 and thereafter he would inherit the property of
Nagappan @ Perumal as his adopted son as well as the share of Perumal, son of
Annamalai as the natural son of Perumal. It is the further case of the plaintiff that
there was a partition in the year 1987 in which he was allotted the suit properties.
The suit 'B' schedule property was allotted to him as the adoptive son of
Nagappan @ Perumal and Sinthamani Aachi. On the above contentions, the
plaintiff sought for a permanent injunction.
4. The suit was resisted by the defendants contending that the claim of the
plaintiff that he was adopted by Nagappan @ Perumal is false. It was their further
contention that there was no partition and the alleged oral partition set up by the
plaintiff is false. The physical features of the property was also pointed out to
dispute the claim of the plaintiff regarding the oral partition in the year 1987.
5. At trial, the plaintiff was examined himself as P.W.1 and the plaintiff's
adoptive mother Sinthamani Aachi was examined as P.W.2. Exts.A1 to A22 were
marked. The first defendant Annamalai was examined as D.W.1 and one
http://www.judis.nic.in
SA (MD) No.295 of 2016
Chellappan was examined as D.W.2 and Exs. B1 and B.2 were marked.
6. The trial court, upon consideration of the evidence on record, concluded
that the partition stood proved since mutation of the revenue records had been
effected and the plaintiff has been given patta under Exts.A1 and A2 for 'A' and
'B' schedule properties. The trial court has also concluded that in view of Exts.A5
and A6 and the evidence of P.W.2 adoption pleaded by the plaintiff has been
proved in accordance with law. The learned trial Judge, however, found that the
plaintiff has not shown the pathway leading to the property allotted to the
defendants and based on the oral evidence found that there is a pathway on north
of 'B' schedule property. On the said conclusion, the trial court has granted a
decree for injunction excluding the portion of the property, which was shown to
be a pathway.
7. Aggrieved, the defendants preferred an appeal in A.S.No.9 of 2012. The
appellate court on a re-appreciation of evidence on record concluded that the oral
partition has not been proved. The appellate court came to the said conclusion on
the ground that the plaintiff has not produced any documents to establish that the
http://www.judis.nic.in
SA (MD) No.295 of 2016
properties were actually divided and the parties were put to be possession on their
respective shares. The failure on the part of the plaintiff to show that the pathway
that was reserved for the property that was according to the plaintiff allotted to
the defendants was also taken into account by the lower Appellate Court to reject
the claim of the plaintiff that there was a partition. Upon finding that the partition
is not proved, the appellate court reversed the judgment and decree of the trial
court and dismissed the suit. Aggrieved, the plaintiff has come up with this
Second Appeal.
8.Notice of motion was ordered by this Court. Pursuant to the same,
Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan, learned counsel appears for the respondents.
9. I have heard Mr.P.Vinoth, learned counsel appearing for the appellant
and Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
10. Mr.P.Vinoth, learned counsel appearing for the appellant would
vehemently contend that the appellate court was not right in concluding that the
plaintiff has not established the oral partition. Drawing my attention to Exts.A1
http://www.judis.nic.in
SA (MD) No.295 of 2016
and A.2 the learned counsel would submit that the grant of patta for specific
extent of property in favour of the plaintiff and his father would establish the
partition that is said to have been taken place in the year 1996. Two facts militate
the plaintiff's claim. Admittedly, the plaintiff's natural father died in the year
1973. The partition is said to have been taken place in the year 1987. If the claim
of the plaintiff that the partition had taken place in the year 1987, patta for 'A'
schedule property should have been issued to the plaintiff. But a perusal of
Ex.A.1 Natham patta shows that it has been issued to the plaintiff's father, who
was admittedly no more at that point of time. Plaintiff's adoptive mother
Sinthamani Aachi was alive and she had executed a deed Ex.A.6 during the
pendency of the suit affirming the adoption made by her. Section 16 of the Hindu
Adoption and Maintenance Act creates a presumption in respect of a registered
instrument which records an adoption. Therefore, adoption stands proved, but the
prayer of the plaintiff is for injunction. The plaintiff could succeed if he has
proved the oral partition. Exs.A1 and A2 are pattas granted to the plaintiff and his
father in respect of 'A' and 'B' schedule properties. But the grant of patta alone
cannot be considered as the complete proof of a oral partition as claimed by the
plaintiff. No doubt, certain demand notices issued to the mother of the plaintiff
http://www.judis.nic.in
SA (MD) No.295 of 2016
have been produced. Those demand notices by themselves would not constitute
adequate proof of a oral partition. More over, the provision of Section 12 of the
Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act will also have a bearing on the right
claimed by the plaintiff to the property of his natural father. No doubt, the
appellate court has not gone into the correctness of the claim of the plaintiff
regarding adoption. The appellate court has come to the factual conclusion that
the claim of oral partition pleaded by the plaintiff has not been established. The
only evidence that is available regarding the oral partition is the pattas granted
under Exts.A1 and A2. As already pointed out these pattas by themselves cannot
be considered as evidence of a complete partition. As rightly pointed out by the
appellate court, the failure on the part of the plaintiff to show the access available
to the property that was allotted to the defendants under the oral partition in the
plaint plan would create doubts on the bonafides of the plaintiff's case. In such
circumstances, the appellate court was justified in concluding that the plaintiff
has not established the oral partition as pleaded by him.
11. I do not find any error or perversity in the finding of the fact rendered
by the appellate court. I also do not see any question of law much less substantial
http://www.judis.nic.in
SA (MD) No.295 of 2016
question of law to enable me to entertain the appeal. Therefore, the appeal fails
and it is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is
closed. Dismissal of the suit will not affect the right of the plaintiff to seek
partition, if he is so advised.
09.02.2021
Internet : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
CM
To:
1.The Principal District Judge,
Pudukkottai.
2. The Subordinate Judge,
Pudukkottai.
3. The Section Officer,
V.R. Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
http://www.judis.nic.in
SA (MD) No.295 of 2016
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
CM
Order made in
S.A(MD)No.295 of 2016
and C.M.P(MD)No.3583 of 2016
09.02.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
