Madras High Court
Sulochana vs Munusamy on 20 April, 2023
S.A.No.538 of 2009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 20..04..2023
Coram
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN
Second Appeal No.538 of 2009
and
M.P.No.1 of 2009
1. Sulochana
2. Sakthivel
3. Thangavel
..... Appellants
-Versus-
Munusamy
..... Respondents
Appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C. against the judgment and
decree dated against the judgement and decree dated 25.09.2008 made in
A.S.No.34 of 2007 by the learned Subordinate Judge, Panruti, confirming the
judgement and decree dated 13.07.2007 made in O.S.No.123 of 1998 by the
learned District Munsif, Panruti.
For Appellants : Mr.N.Thiagarajan
For Respondents : Mrs.Nilaphar
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1 of 5
S.A.No.538 of 2009
JUDGEMENT
This is a simple case where the 2nd plaintiff has got 7.50 cents by way of
settlement from his grandfather. He has obtained an additional 1.0 cent by
virtue of succeeding to the estate of his father – Elumalai. He filed the suit for
declaration of title to the suit 'C' Schedule property and for permanent
injunction, which was decreed partly declaring the title of the plaintiffs to an
extent of 461 square meters in S.No.201/3 at Veerasingankuppam village and
for permanent injunction.
2. Aggrieved by the partial dismissal of the suit, the plaintiffs preferred
an appeal in A.S.No.34 of 2007 before Subordinate Judge, Panruti, which was
dismissed on 25.09.2008.
3. Further aggrieved by the dismissal of the appeal suit, the plaintiffs are
before this court with this second appeal.
4. At the time of admission, this court has formulated the following
substantial questions of law for consideration:-
1. Whether the courts below have committed an
error in law in holding that the evidence adduced on the
side of the plaintiffs were not sufficient to shift the
burden of proof on the defendant to prove that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2 of 5
S.A.No.538 of 2009
Arumugam, the grandfather of the defendant was one of
the sons of Muthiah Padayachi?
2. Whether the findings of the courts below that
Arumugam, the grandfather of the defendant was a son
of Muthiah Padayachi is perverse?
5. Insofar as the 2nd question of law that has been framed by this court -
whether Arumugham is the father of Muthiah Padayachi is concerned, such a
question of law does not at all arise in this case. It is absolutely irrelevant
whether the defendant is the son of Arumugam Padayachi. The simple reason
being the grandfather of the plaintiff he had settled the property to an extent of
15 cents in favour of Sakthivel and Subramani. Each got 7.5 cents in the
property.
6. The aforesaid Sakthivel thereafter purchased an extent of 1.5 cents
from his uncle Thandavarayan from his father's share succeeding to the estate
of his paternal grandfather Rangasamy. Therefore, he got an additional 0.5
cents together with 3rd plaintiff. In all, he is entitled to 10 cents.
7. The trial court has granted decree for 461 square meters on the basis of
patta which corresponds to 11.38 cents. In fact, the trial court has been very
charitable and had granted an additional extent of 1.38 cents to the plaintiffs.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3 of 5
S.A.No.538 of 2009
The said decree has been confirmed by the first appellate court.
8. I have tallied the purchases made by the appellants and their
predecessors in title and find no error in the judgement and decree of the trial
court other than the fact that it has given him more that what he actually
deserves to get. No question of law, much less, substantial question of law has
been pointed out by appellants/plaintiffs to assail the judgements of the courts
below. The questions of law sought to be projected by the appellants/plaintiffs
are nothing but red herring ones. In view of the discussions made above, the
substantial questions of law 1 & 2 are answered against the appellants and
second appeal is liable to be dismissed with costs.
In the result, this second appeal is dismissed with costs. The judgement
and decree of both the courts below are confirmed. Consequently, connected
MP is closed.
20..04..2023
Index : yes / no
Neutral Citation : yes / no
Speaking / Non Speaking Order
kmk
To
1.The Subordinate Judge, Panruti, Cuddalore District.
2.The District Munsif, Panruti, Cuddalore District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4 of 5
S.A.No.538 of 2009
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
kmk
S.A.No.538 of 2009
20..04..2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5 of 5
