Madras High Court
V.Kanthaiya Konar (Died) vs V.Ramasamy Konar (Died) on 8 October, 2021
SA(MD)No.486 of 2014
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 08.10.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
SA(MD)No.486 of 2014 &
MP(MD)No.1 of 2014
1.V.Kanthaiya Konar (Died)
2.Chiambarathammal
3.Ranjith
4.Rajapandi ... Appellants
(Appellants 2 to 4 are suo motu impleaded as
lrs of the deceased sole appellant vide court
order dated 17.09.2021 in SA(MD)No.486 of
2014)
Vs.
1.V.Ramasamy Konar (Died)
2.Govindammal
3.Venkatachalapathy
4.Subramanian
5.Vijayalakshmi
6.Muthulakshmi
7.Uma Maheswari ... Respondents
(Respondents 2 to 7 are suo motu impleaded as
lrs of the deceased sole respondent vide court
order dated 17.09.2021 in SA(MD)No.486 of
2014)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/4
SA(MD)No.486 of 2014
Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code,
against the Decree and Judgment dated 28.06.2010 in AS.No.17 of 2008 passed
by the Principal District Judge, Tirunelveli District confirming the Decree and
Judgment dated 17.07.2006 in OS.No.75 of 2001 passed by the Principal
Subordinate Judge, Tenkasi.
For Appellants : Mr.A.Haja Mohideen
For Respondents : Mr.Rahamadullah for
Mr.K.Gokul
JUDGMENT
The defendant in OS.No.75 of 2001 on the file of the Principal
Subordinate Court, Tenkasi filed the Second Appeal. During the pendency of
the Second Appeal, he passed away and his legal heirs were brought on record.
Likewise, the plaintiff in OS.No.75 of 2001 was also passed away and his legal
heirs were brought on record.
2. The said suit was filed for partition. The trial Court granted
preliminary decree partly accepting the case of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the
same, both the parties filed appeals before the Principal District Judge,
Tirunelveli. The first Appellate Court dismissed both the appeals. Aggrieved
by the same, the defendant filed this Second Appeal
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
SA(MD)No.486 of 2014
3. There is no dispute that the suit schedule properties are four in
number. The suit schedule property No.1 was purchased jointly by the plaintiff
and the defendant. But it has been established that the said property was sold
away in public auction in execution of the decree in OS.No.307 of 1998 on the
file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Tenkasi against the parties herein.
Thus, the said suit schedule property No.1 was not available for partition.
Therefore, the trial Court declined to grant any relief in that regard.
Preliminary decree was passed in respect of the suit schedule property No.2.
Relief was again declined in respect of the first item in the third schedule. The
Court has given a categorical finding that there is no proof as regards the
existence of such a money decree in favour of the parties herein.
4. The trial Court after careful consideration of the entire evidence on
record, had granted the relief partially. The first Appellate Court after re-
appreciating the entire evidence on record, had confirmed the same. No
substantial question arises for determination. The Second Appeal is dismissed.
No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
08.10.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
mbi
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
SA(MD)No.486 of 2014
G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.
mbi
Note :In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web
copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the
copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility
of the advocate/litigant concerned.
To
1. The Principal District Court,
Tirunelveli.
2. The Principal Subordinate Court,
Tenkasi
S.A.(MD)No.486 of 2014
08.10.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
