Madras High Court
Jeyachandran vs Sundayee Amathalaimuthual on 22 September, 2022
AS(MD)No.119 of 2014
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 22.09.2022
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE J. NISHA BANU
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH
A.S.(MD)No.119 of 2014
and
M.P.(MD)No.3 of 2014
1.Jeyachandran
2.Chandra ... Appellants / Defendants 1&4
/Vs./
1.Sundayee AMathalaimuthual
2.Vijayalakshmi ... Respondents1&2 /Plaintiffs
PRAYER: Appeal - filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
to set aside the judgment and decree dated 20.11.2012 passed by the learned
VI Additional District Judge, Madurai in O.S.No.72 of 2008 and dismiss the
suit.
For Appellants : Mr.K.Sekar
For Respondents : No appearance
Page 1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
AS(MD)No.119 of 2014
JUDGMENT
J. NISHA BANU,J.
and
N. ANAND VENKATESH,J.
This appeal has been filed by the defendants 1 and 4 challenging the
preliminary decree passed by the Court below granting 1/6 share each for
the plaintiffs.
2. The case of the plaintiffs is that the first plaintiff is the mother of
the second plaintiff and the first plaintiff is the legally wedded wife of one
Mathalaimuthu. The first plaintiff has admitted that she is the 5th wife of the
said Mathalaimuthu. The further case of the plaintiffs is that the said
Mathalaimuthu left behind the plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 4 as his legal
representatives and according to the plaintiffs, they are entitled for share in
the suit property. Accordingly, they sought for preliminary decree for
allotment of 7/12 property in favour of the first plaintiff, 1/12 share in
favour of the second plaintiff.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
AS(MD)No.119 of 2014
3. The first defendant and the third defendant filed written statements.
They categorically took a stand that the marriage between the abovesaid
Mathalaimuthu and the first plaintiff is not legal and hence she will not be
entitled for any share in the property. They also took a stand that the
plaintiffs do not have any right over the suit property and the suit has been
filed only to grab the property, which belongs to the actual legal heirs of the
deceased Mathalaimuthu.
4. The Court below, on considering the oral and documentary
evidence and the facts and circumstances of the case, came to a conclusion
that both the plaintiffs are entitled for 1/6 share each in the suit property and
accordingly, a preliminary decree was passed. Aggrieved by the same, the
present appeal has been filed before this Court.
5. The points for consideration in the present appeal are:-
(a) Whether there was a valid marriage between the first plaintiff and
the deceased Mathalaimuthu and consequently whether the first plaintiff is
entitled for any share in the suit property?
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
AS(MD)No.119 of 2014
(b) Whether the Judgment passed by the Court below requires
interference of this court?
6. Heard Mr.K.Sekar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant.
7. It is clear from the pleadings and the evidence that was let in that
the first plaintiff was the fifth wife of deceased Mathalaimuthu. There was
absolutely no evidence to show that the marriage was actually contracted
between the first plaintiff and the said Mathalaimuthu. Even if such a
marriage had taken place, the relationship of the first plaintiff with the
deceased Mathalaimuthu will not have the backing of law, since such a
marriage had taken place during the subsistence of the earlier marriage. In
view of the same, the trial Court was absolutely wrong in allotting a share in
favour of the first plaintiff. The first point for determination is answered
accordingly.
8. Insofar as the second plaintiff is concerned, she is the daughter of
the first plaintiff and even if the marriage between the first plaintiff and the
deceased Mathalaimuthu is not valid, the second plaintiff will be entitled for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
AS(MD)No.119 of 2014
a share in the property belonging to her father by virtue of Section 16 of the
Hindu Succession Act, 1956. In view of the same, share given to the second
plaintiff is perfectly right and it does not require the interference of this
Court. In view of the same, the second plaintiff will be entitled for 1/5
share in the suit property and the defendants 1 to 4 will be entitled for 1/5
share each. To that extent, the preliminary decree passed by the Court
below requires modification. The second point for consideration is
answered accordingly.
9. In view of the above discussion, this Appeal suit is partly allowed
and the judgment and decree passed by the Court below in O.S.No.72 of
2008 dated 20.11.2012 is modified and there shall be a preliminary decree
for allotment of 1/5 share in the suit property in favour of the second
plaintiff. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be
no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is
closed.
(J.N.B.,J.) (N.A.V.,J.)
22.09.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
AS(MD)No.119 of 2014
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes
J. NISHA BANU,J.
and
N. ANAND VENKATESH,J.
sm
To:
1.The VI Additional District Judge, Madurai.
Judgment made in
A.S.(MD)No.119 of 2014
Dated
22.09.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
