Madras High Court
K.Subramani vs Vellaiyammal on 3 September, 2021
S.A(MD)No.516 of 2015
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 03.09.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA
S.A(MD)No.516 of 2015
and
M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2015
K.Subramani ... Appellant/Appellant/2nd defendant
Vs.
1.Vellaiyammal
2.Kaliammal
3.Lakshmi
4.Nalluchamy
5.Veeramalai ... Respondents 1 to 5/Respondents 1 to 5 /
Plaintiffs 1 to 5
6.Karuppanan @ Karuppana Goundar
7.Pappathi
8.Arasayi ...Respondents 6 to 8/Respondents 6 to 8 /
Defendants 1, 3 & 4
Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code,
1908, against the judgment and decree dated 28.04.2015 passed in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/8
S.A(MD)No.516 of 2015
A.S.No.6 of 2013 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions
Judge, Dindigul, confirming the judgment and decree dated 04.12.2012
passed in O.S.No.26 of 2012 on the file of the Sub Court, Vedasanthur
Taluk, Dindigul District.
For Appellant : No Appearance
For Respondents : Mr.A.Shajahan for RR-1 to 5
JUDGMENT
There is no representation for the appellant on the earlier
hearing i.e. on 01.09.2021 and thereby, this Court posted the matter
under the caption "for orders" today i.e. on 03.09.2021. Even today,
there is no representation for the appellant.
2. Mr.A.Shajahan, learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 5
would submit that the appellant herein is the second defendant in the suit
in O.S.No.26 of 2012, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Vedasanthur,
filed by the respondents 1 to 5/ plaintiffs for the relief of partition. The
trial Court by judgment and decree, dated 04.12.2012, decreed the suit.
Against the judgment and decree made in O.S.No.26 of 2012, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A(MD)No.516 of 2015
defendants 1, 3 and 4 have filed separate appeal which was numbered as
A.S.No.2 of 2012 and the second defendant also filed an appeal which
was numbered as A.S.No.6 of 2013 before the Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Dindigul. The First Appellate Court concurred with the
findings of the Trial Court and dismissed both the appeals by a common
judgment, dated 28.04.2015. Against the common judgment, the
defendants 1, 3 and 4 have filed Second Appeal in S.A.(MD) No.431 of
2015 before this Court and this Court finding that there is no substantial
question of law is involved in the case, had dismissed the second appeal
in S.A.(MD) No.431 of 2015 by judgment and decree dated 27.09.2019
and thereby, the order of both the Courts have been confirmed. Since the
present second appeal also arises out of the same appeal and no
substantial question of law is involved in this appeal, the present second
appeal is also liable to be dismissed.
3. There is no representation for the appellant. Heard the
learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 5 and perused the materials
available on record.
4.The respondents 1 to 5 herein are the plaintiffs in O.S.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A(MD)No.516 of 2015
No.26 of 2012 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Vedasanthur. The
said suit had been filed for partition. The present appellant is the second
defendant in the said suit. The trial Court by judgment and decree
dated 04.12.2012, decreed the suit. Against the judgment and decree, the
defendants 1, 3 and 4 have filed an appeal in A.S.No.2 of 2012 and the
present appellant / second defendant has also filed separate appeal in
A.S.No.6 of 2013 before the Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Dindigul. The Appellate Court by common judgment, dated 28.04.2015
dismissed both the appeals. Against the dismissal of the appeal in
A.S.No.2 of 2012, the appellants / defendants 1, 3 and 4 has filed Second
Appeal in S.A.(MD) No.431 of 2015 before this Court. This Court
finding that there is no substantial question of law involved in the said
appeal, had dismissed the Second Appeal in S.A.(MD) No.431 of 2015
by judgment and decree, dated 27.09.2019. The relevant portion of the
judgment in S.A.(MD) No.431 of 2015 is extracted hereunder :
"9.Admittedly, the suit A schedule properties
are joint family properties of the first defendant and
his brother Palaniappan, through whom, the plaintiffs
are claiming their right. The first defendant,
admittedly is the eldest member of their family, who
was exclusively in charge of the management and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A(MD)No.516 of 2015
administration of the joint family property. Even as
late as in the year 2008, the parties have jointly
executed a sale deed with reference to one item of the
suit A schedule property. The defendants who have
come forward with a case that the first defendant
possessed sufficient funds, have not let in any
evidence whatsoever to prove the same and except for
their pleadings and oral deposition, there is nothing on
record to substantiate the same. Considering the fact
that the plaintiffs have let in evidence to show that the
parties were possessed of joint family property, which
yielded income, the presumption that the B schedule
properties have been purchased from out of this
income has not been countenanced by the defendants
by letting in any independent evidence."
5. In the said Second Appeal, this Court finding that there is
no substantial question of law involved, had dismissed the earlier Second
Appeal in S.A.(MD) No.431 of 2015. Further, this Court has found that
the defendants have not let in any evidence whatsoever to prove that the
first defendant possessed sufficient funds and this Court finding that the
plaintiffs have let in evidence to show that the parties were possessed of
joint family property, which yielded income, the presumption that the 'B'
schedule properties have been purchased from and out of this income has
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A(MD)No.516 of 2015
not been countenanced by the defendants by letting in any independent
evidence.
6.In view of the aforesaid position, this Court finds that
there is no substantial question of law involved in the present Second
Appeal and the same also deserves to be dismissed.
7. Accordingly, this Second Appeal is dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
03.09.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
rm
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A(MD)No.516 of 2015
To
1.The Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Dindigul.
2.The Subordinate Court,
Vedasanthur Taluk,
Dindigul District.
3.The Record Keeper,
Vernacular Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A(MD)No.516 of 2015
A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.,
rm
Judgment made in
S.A(MD)No.516 of 2015
03.09.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
