Madras High Court
A.Pitchi vs M.Meenakshi on 7 September, 2021
S.A.(MD)No.648 of 2013
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 07.09.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
S.A.(MD)No.648 of 2013
A.Pitchi ... Appellant
Vs.
1.M.Meenakshi
2.M.Chidambaram
3.M.Sethuraman
4.M.Muthu Mahesh
5.M.R.Chidambaram
6.M.R.Shanmugham ... Respondents
Prayer : Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code,
against the judgment and decree dated 03.12.2012 made in A.S.No.39 of 2007
on the file of the Sub Court, Pudukkottai, confirming the judgment and decree
dated 19.12.2006 made in O.S.No.75 of 2004 on the file of the District Munsif
Cum Judicial Magistrate, Thirumayam.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/6
S.A.(MD)No.648 of 2013
For Appellant : Mr.Alagusundar
For Respondents : Mr.Madhavan
For Mr.M.Karthikeyavenkitachalaphy for R1 to R4
No appearance for R5 & R6
JUDGEMENT
The fifth defendant in O.S.No.75 of 2004 on the file of the District
Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate, Thirumayam, is the appellant in this second
appeal. The appeal arises out of a partition suit. The suit was filed by the
respondents 1 to 4 herein for partition and separate possession of half share in
the suit property. There is no dispute that the suit property originally belonged
to Annamalai Chettiar. Annamalai Chettiar had four sons namely,
Chinnathambi @ Raman Chettiar, Muthaiah Chettiar, Chidambaram Chettiar,
Murugappa Chettiar. There is no dispute that second and third sons died
issueless. Chinnathambi @ Raman Chettiar had a son by name Muthaiah
Chettiar. Muthaiah Chettiar got married to the first plaintiff/Meenakshi and the
remaining three plaintiffs were born through the said wedlock. The Murugappa
Chettiar, the fourth son of Annamalai Chettiar had four sons namely, the
defendants 1 to 4. The wife and children of Murugappa Chettiar filed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.(MD)No.648 of 2013
O.S.No.75 of 2004 claiming their half share in the suit property. The fifth
defendant/Pitchi had purchased 2 acres and 33 cents from the sons of Muthaiah
Chettiar vide sale deeds dated 30.05.1994 and 06.04.1995 under Exs.B1 and
B2. The fifth defendant filed his written statement controverting the plaint
averments. It was also pointed out that the Muthaiah Chettiar, through whom
the plaintiffs claim their right and interest in the suit property had already
settled his share in the suit property in favour a local temple vide settlement
deed dated 24.08.1994. Therefore, the fifth defendant contended that the
plaintiffs cannot maintain the present suit for partition. Based on the divergent
pleadings, the Court below framed the necessary issues.
2.The power agent of the plaintiffs namely, Subbiah was examined as
P.W.1 and Exs.A1 to A14 were marked. One Alagu was examined as D.W.1
and Exs.B1 to B9 were marked.
3.After consideration of the evidence on either side, the trial Court by
judgment and decree dated 19.12.2006 granted preliminary decree allotting half
share in the suit property. Aggrieved by the same, the fifth defendant filed
A.S.No.39 of 2017 before the Sub Court, Pudukkottai. The first appellate
Court by the impugned judgment and decree dated 03.12.2012 dismissed the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.(MD)No.648 of 2013
appeal and confirmed the decision of the trial Court. Challenging the same, this
second appeal came to be filed.
4.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the
appellant proposed to file additional evidence. When I wanted to know the
details, it was submitted that the appellant wanted to mark the settlement deed
dated 24.08.1994 executed by Muthaiah Chettiar in favour of the local temple.
5.I am of the view that the appeal need not be adjourned on that account.
There is no dispute that the suit property originally belonged to Annamalai
Chettiar. Out of the four sons of Annamalai Chettiar, two sons died issueless.
Therefore, the suit property devolved in equal shares on the first son namely,
Chinnathami @ Raman Chettiay and last son namely, Murugappa Chettiar. The
plaintiffs claim through the first branch. The defendants claim through the
other branch. Therefore, each branch will have half share. There is no dispute
that Muthaiah Chettiar had executed his 1/4th undivided share in the suit
property in favour of the local temple. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs
points out that this aspect of the matter was already gone into by the Court
below. Whatever was settled by Muthaiah Chettiar in favour of the local
temple will be adjusted as against the half share that will be allotted to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.(MD)No.648 of 2013
plaintiffs. Therefore, the appellant need not have any grievance. No
substantial question of law arises for consideration. The plaintiffs are directed
to implead the settlee/temple in the final decree proceedings. The second
appeal is dismissed. No costs.
07.09.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
ias
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 Subordinate Court,
Pudukkottai.
2.The District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate,
Thirumayam.
Copy to:
The Record Keeper,
V.R. Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.(MD)No.648 of 2013
ias
S.A.(MD)No.648 of 2013
07.09.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
