Madras High Court
Mrs. Vembala vs /24 on 2 August, 2023
AS.No.30 of 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 02.08.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R.KALAIMATHI
A.S.No.30 of 2011, MP No.2 of 2011
CMP Nos.3501/2020, 17805 & 17811/2021, 2136/2022 & 8172/2023
1. Mrs. Vembala
2. Mrs. Vasanthi (Deceased)
3. Mr.Raja
4. Mr.Mani
5. V. Rajendran
6. R.Chitra
7. R.Renuka Devi
8. R. Sukanthi ... Appellants
Appellants 5 to 8 brought on record as LRs of the
deceased 2nd Appellant vide order of this Court
dated 25.01.2018 made in MP Nos. 2 & 3/2012
in AS No.30/2011 (By ASJ & PKJ)
vs.
1/24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
AS.No.30 of 2011
Krishnamoorthi
2. V.Suseela
3. K. Deivasigamani
4. K. Gowri
5. K.Jayanthi
6. K. Sridhar
7. K. Abirami ... Respondents
RR2 to R7 brought on record as LRS of the deceased
sole respondent viz., T.Krishnamurthy, vide court order
dated 02.07.2019 made in CMP 12126, 12127 and 12130/2019
in AS No.30/2011 (NKKJ & AQJ)
Appeal suit has been filed under Section 96 read with Order XLI
Rule 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to set aside the judgment and
made in O.S.No.414 of 2006 on the file of the Additional District Judge,
Fast Track Court No.I, Chengalpattu dated 18.06.2020.
For Appellant : Mr.R.Thiagarajan
For Respondents : Mr.N.R.Anantha Rama Krishnan
for RR2 to 7
R1 - Died
2/24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
AS.No.30 of 2011
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.)
The plaintiffs in OS No.414 of 2006, aggrieved by the dismissal
of their suit for partition, are on Appeal.
2. Claiming that the suit properties are ancestral and self acquired
properties of one Thangavelu Naicker, who died in the year 1972 leaving
behind his wife Aburvammal and three sons viz. Duraisamy,
Krishnamoorthy and Natarajan, the wife of Thangavelu Naicker,
Aburvammal died in 1981, the plaintiffs, who are the legal heirs of
Natarajan, sought for partition of their half share. They sought to justify
their claim to half share contending that the eldest son Duraisamy divided
himself and started living separately. He died in the year 2000 leaving
behind his only daughter Parvathi. The husband of the first plaintiff and
the father of plaintiffs 2 to 4, Natarajan died in the year 1995. After the
separation of Duraisamy, Krishnamoorthy and Natarajan continued
jointly till the death of Natarajan and hence the plaintiffs would be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
AS.No.30 of 2011
entitled to half share in the suit properties. The plaintiffs had also
claimed that certain properties measuring about an acre and 71 cents was
allotted to Duraisamy, when he separated himself from the family.
3. This claim of the plaintiffs was resisted stiffly by the sole
defendant Krishnamoorthy. He would contend that there was a partition
of all the properties of Thangavelu Naicker, even in the year 1964 and at
the partition, separate allotments were made to each of the sons and
parties were put in possession of their respective shares also. It was also
contended that the first defendant as well as the husband of the first
plaintiff and father of the plaintiffs 2 to 4 Natarajan have both purchased
the share allotted to Duraisamy, from Duraisamy even during his life time
under various Sale Deeds. It was also contended that the sole defendant
Krishnamoorthy had filed a suit for specific performance against
Duraisamy, his daughter Parvarthi and Natarajan.
4.The defendant also set out in detail, the manner in which the
allotment was made in the 1964 Partition with reference to each item of
'A' Schedule Properties. He had also pointed out that 'Item I' did not
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
AS.No.30 of 2011
belong to Thangavelu Naicker, but it belonged to the mother of
Thangavelu Naicker, Muniammal and since he took care of Munaiammal,
Muniammal had handed over the title deed of the property to him and he
as the owner thereof had sold the same to one Sivaraman even in the year
1991. On the above pleadings, the defendant sought for dismissal of the
suit. In sofar as the B Schedule Property is concerned, the defendant
would contend that neither Natarajan nor their ancestor Thangavelu
Naicker had any right over the same. It is his further contention, the said
properties being Grama Natham, he had occupied 35 cents of the same
and he continues to be in possession of the same. He would also point
out that his elder brother Duraisamy had occupied an extent of 6 cents
and those 6 cents were subject matter of the suit in OS No.262 of 1979.
5. On the above pleadings, the learned Trial Judge framed the
following issues:
1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the suit for
partition as prayed for?
2. Whether the oral partition pleaded by the
defedant is true? If so, acted upon
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
AS.No.30 of 2011
3. To what relief?
The following additional issue was framed on 27.11.2003:
Whether the plaintiff is entitled for any share over
the ‘B’ Schedule property?
The said issue was recast on 18.0.06.2010 as follows:
Whether all the suit properties are ancestral and
joint family properties of Duraisamy, Krishnamoorthy
and Natarajan?
6. At trial three witnesses were examined on the side of the
plaintiffs as P.Ws.1 to 3. P.W.1 is the second plaintiff, P.W.2 is the first
plaintiff and one Kanniappan, an independent witness was examined as
P.W.3. The defendant was examined as D.W.1. Exhibits A1 to A6 were
marked on the side of the plaintiffs and Exhibits B1 to B12 were marked
on the side of the defendant.
7. The Trial Court upon a consideration of the evidence on record
concluded that the 1964 Partition was, for the entire properties of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
AS.No.30 of 2011
family of Thangavelu Naicker and all the sons of Thangavelu Naicker
were allotted specific portions of land in the said partition. The Trial
Court also found that the plaintiffs have not established that the property
remained joint, after Duraisamy had taken his share. The Trial Court also
found that the parties were in enjoyment of the respective properties
allotted to each of them. On the aforesaid findings, the learned Trial
Judge dismissed the suit.
8. Aggrieved plaintiffs are on appeal. Pending Appeal, the first
respondent/defendant Krishnamoorthy died and his legal representatives
were brought on record as respondents 2 to 7. The second appellant also
died and her legal representatives were brought on record as appellants 5
to 8.
9. In the Appeal two Civil Miscellaneous Petitions have been filed
by the appellant as well as the respondents. While the appellants have
filed CMP No.2136 of 2022 seeking to produce additional evidence viz.
the Town Survey Extract issued by the Tahsildar, Tambaram, the
respondents have filed CMP No.8172 of 2023 seeking to produce the
following documents as additional evidence:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
AS.No.30 of 2011
S.No. Date Description Remarks
1 19.03.2012 Partition Deed in Certified Copy
Doc.No.2282/2012 at SRO-
Salaiyur - Partition between heirs
of Natarajan
2. 21.03.2017 RTI Letter sent by K.Arjunan to Original
the Tahsildhar, Sholinganallur.
3 13.05.2017 RTI Letter sent by K.Arjunan to Original
the Special Tahsildar, Tambaram
with Acknowledgement Car d
4 19.05.2017 Reply from the Deputy Original
Tahsildar, Sholinganallur along
with FMB, Chitta and Anandgal
as enclosures
5 30.05.2017 Reply from the Special Original
Tahsildar, Tambaram enclosing
FMB Sketch in Sur.No.146/7
and Tambaram Town Survey
Plan for Ward-I, Block No.3
6 01.08.2017 Reply by Deputy Tahsildar, Original
Tambaram to K.Arjunan along
with 8A file register
7 18.08.2017 Reply from the Special Original
Tahsildar, Tambaram
8 22.09.2017 Petition to Special Tahsildhar, Original
Tambaram to cancel Patta
9 24.01.2018 Notice for Enquiry issued by the Original
Special Tahsildhar to
Deivasigamani son of
T.Krishnamurthy.
10 05.10.2018 Patta in T.S.No.38 in the name Original
T.Krishnamurthy S/o.Thangavel
11 19.02.2019 Patta in T.S.No.38 in the name Original
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
AS.No.30 of 2011
S.No. Date Description Remarks
of Deivasigamani and Sridhar
son of T.Krishnamurthy
10. A counter has also been filed in CMP No.8172 of 2023
contending that the fact that the Partition Deed has been entered into on
19.03.2012 as between the heirs of Natarajan would not affect the suit
launched by Natarajan. The defence that is set up by the respondent in
the suit admitting the possession of the plaintiffs and their predecessor
Natarajan of certain properties is projected as a reason for entering into
the partition.
11. We have heard Mr.R.Thiyagarajan learned counsel appearing
for the appellants and Mr.N.R.Anantha Rama Krishnan, learned counsel
appearing for the respondents.
12. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit
that once the defendant had admitted that certain properties remained
undivided and has chosen to deny the right of the plaintiffs to the ‘B’
Schedule property in the absence of any evidence to show that the ‘B’
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
AS.No.30 of 2011
Schedule Property was also divided and other properties which remained
undivided were also partitioned among the parties, the dismissal of the
suit is not justified. He would also contend that as far as the Grama
Natham land is concerned namely ‘B’ Schedule, there is nothing to show
that the same was partitioned between the sons of Thangavelu Naicker.
Drawing us to the contents of the written statement and additional written
statement, the learned counsel would submit that the defendant himself
had admitted the existence of the joint family properties and the fact that
they were not divided. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the
Trial Court was not justified in dismissing the suit.
13. Adverting to the miscellaneous petition filed by him, the
learned counsel for the appellants would submit that what has been
produced is a Public Document viz., the Town Survey Land Register and
therefore, they cannot be any objection for receipt of the same as
additional evidence. As far as CMP No.8172 of 2023 is concerned, the
learned counsel for the appellants while admitting the execution of the
Partition Deed would submit that it will not preclude the parties from
claiming partition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
AS.No.30 of 2011
14. Countering the submissions of Mr.R.Thiagarajan, learned
counsel for the appellants, Mr.N.R.Anantha Rama Krishnan, learned
counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that P.W.1 in his
oral evidence has admitted the partition and allotment of shares. He
would draw our attention to the evidence of P.W.1, particularly in cross-
examination, wherein P.W.1 has almost admitted the every plea of the
defendant in the written statement. P.W.1 has also admitted that they
had sold an extent of 39 cents of land that was allotted to them in the
partition of the year 1964. In the additional proof affidavit of P.W.1
certain observations made in the specific performance suit filed by the
defendant in OS No.262 of 1979, were extracted and the plaintiffs sought
to take advantage of it. The said observations are as follows:
“If at all, there are some properties belonging to
the joint family consisting of the Plaintiff and the
Defendants 1 and 3, the aggrieved party has to file a
separate Suit for Partition. They cannot agitate the same
in this Suit.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
AS.No.30 of 2011
15. However, while deposing on 15.04.2008, P.W.1 in his evidence
has deposed as follows:
“ru;nt vz;/168-6 mjpy; 26 brz;l; mjw;fhf Mtzk;
,y;iy/ 26 brz;l; mapll; k; be/2?y; (v bc&l;a{y;) vd;Dila
ghfj;jpw;F te;jij ehd; mDgtpjJ ; tUfpnwd;/ mjw;fhd
fp!;J ehd; jhd; fl;o tUfpnwd;/ ru;nt be/168-8 mapll; k;
be/3 mJ fpUc&;zK:j;jpapd; mDgtj;jpy; ,Uf;fpwJ/
mtUila ghfj;jpw;F te;jJ/ tp!;jPuzk; 30 brz;L gpujpthjp
ghfj;jpw;F te;J mth; mDgtpjJ ; tUfpwhh;/ 4tJ mapll; k; rh;nt
169-2 tp!;jPuzk; 44 brz;l; vd;Dila bgahpag;g bghparhkpfF ;
14 brz;l; bfhLj;jhfptpll; J/ vd; mg;ght[fF ; 15 brz;l;
bfhLf;fg;gl;L mij ehd; mDgtpjJ ; tUfpnwd;/ kPjp 15
brz;il fpUc&;zK:h;j;jp mDgtpjJ ; tUfpwhh;/ j';fnty; kfd;
tha; tHpahf ghfk; gphpff; g;gl;L mDgtpjJ ; tUfpwhh;fs ; /
Mdhy; mJ rhpahf gphpff; g;gltpy;iy/ (mapll; k; be/5. Rh;nt
be/169-2d;go Mfk;) rh;nt 169-3 ehd; mDgtpjJ ; tUfpnwd;/
8 brd;l; ehd; nfl;oUf;fpnwd;/ mij 7 brz;Lk; ehd;
mDgtpjJ ; tUfpnwd; vd;why; rhpjhd;/ 7 brz;l; tha;bkhHp
ghfj;jpd; tHpahf vdf;F te;jJ vd;why; rhpjhd;/ 7 brz;l;
tha;bkhHp ghfj;jpd; tHpahf vdf;F te;jJ vd;why; rhpjhd;.
gpujpthjpfF
; me;j 7 brz;l; epyj;ij bfhLg;gjw;F ve;jtpj
Ml;nrgida[k; ,y;iy vd;why; rhp/ mapll; k; be/7/-169-6
tp!;jPhz
; k; 12 brz;l; tha;bkhHpahf ghfg;gphptpid MdJ
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
AS.No.30 of 2011
vd;why; rhpjhd;/ mnj khjphp rh;nt 169-7 mapll; k; 8
tp!;jPhz ; k; tha;bkhHpahf ghfk;gphpff; g;gl;lJ vd;why; rhpjhd;/
mapll; k; 10/ rh;nt 249-4 41 brz;l; e";ir epyk; Vw;fdnt
Jiurhkp./ fpUc&;zK:h;jj; p MfpnahUf;F ghfk;
bfhLf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ rhpjhd;/ mit rhprkhf tha;bkhHpahf
gphpff; g;gl;Ltpll; J/ mjd; mog;gilapy; eh';fs; mDgtpjJ ;
tUfpnwhk; vd;why; rhpjhd;/ mapll; k; be/11/204-2 gl;lhgo 80
brz;l; cs;sJ/ ”
16. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents would very
heavily rely on the above admissions in support of his contention that
there had been a partition in 1964 and it was a complete partition of all
the properties and nothing was left undivided. We also find that
Natarajan, the predecessor of plaintiffs themselves has purchased certain
properties from Duraisamy even in the year 1979.
17. Drawing our attention to the additional documents that are
sought to be produced by him viz. the Partition Deed entered into
between the plaintiffs 1, 3 and 4 and the children of the second plaintiff,
the learned counsel for respondents would contend that this document
would conclusively establish that there was a complete partition of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
AS.No.30 of 2011
properties in 1964 and that the deceased Natarajan himself has purchased
certain properties that were alloted to Duraisamy under a Sale Deed of
the year 1979. In view of the specific recitals in the said instrument, the
learned counsel would submit that the claim for partition has been rightly
rejected by the learned Trial Judge. Referring to the petition for
production of additional evidence, the learned counsel for the respondents
would contend that since the execution of the Partition Deed has been
admitted in the counter and the other documents are only public
documents obtained under the Right to Information Act, the same should
be received.
18. We have considered the rival submissions.
19. We shall first deal with the two Petitions that have been filed
under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for letting in
additional evidence. As far as the Petition that has been filed by the
appellants in CMP No.2136 of 2022, we find that the documents that are
sought to be produced are Revenue Records which have been obtained
after the suit which relate to B Schedule Property. Those two documents
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
AS.No.30 of 2011
viz. extract from the Town Survey Land Register would only show that
parties are in possession of a particular extent in Survey No.146/7A viz.,
‘B’ Schedule Property.
20. Though it is contended that those two documents are not true
and the information obtained under the Right to Information Act, which
has been produced along with CMP No.8172 of 2023 would show that
those documents are forged, we do not find any prejudice to the
respondents by receiving these documents in evidence. We also find that
these documents would help us in deciding the Appeal one way or the
other. Hence CMP No.2136 of 2022 is allowed. Those two documents are
received and marked as Exhibits A7 and A8.
21. Adverting to CMP No.8172 of 2023 a counter has been filed
admitting the execution of the Partition Deed and its Registration. There
is no serious dispute regarding the contents of the document also. The
other documents that are sought to be filed are again Public Documents
viz. the correspondence between the respondent and the Revenue
Authorities regarding the genuineness of Exhibits A7 and A8. We do not
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
AS.No.30 of 2011
see any valid objection for receiving these documents. Being mostly
public documents issued by the Competent Authority under the Right to
Information Act, we do not see any hurdle in receiving these documents
as additional evidence, more so when they would be very helpful in
deciding the Appeal. Hence CMP No.8172 of 2023 is also allowed.
Those documents are received and marked as Exhibits B13 to B24. In
view of the fact that the contents of the documents sought to be produced
are not in dispute and their admissibility is also not in doubt we take
receive the documents on record without out insisting on formal proof.
22. From a consideration of the contentions of the counsel on either
side, the following points emerged for determination in the Appeal:
(1) Whether the defence set up to the effect that
there was a complete oral partition amongst the heirs of
Thangavelu Naicker in 1964 had been established or
not?
(2) Whether the plaintiffs would be entitled to the
relief of partition as prayed for?
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
AS.No.30 of 2011
Point No.1:
23. If not anything else the evidence of P.W.1 would conclusively
establish the oral partition that had taken place in the year 1964, among
the sons of Thangavelu Naicker. We had extracted the evidence of P.W.1
supra. P.W.1 in effect admitted every word of defence set up by the
defendant in the written statement. Apart from the above, more
conclusive proof is available in the form of Ex.B13 dated 19.03.2012,
entered into pending this Appeal between the plaintiffs themselves, a
registered instrument of partition. The said document recites that some of
the properties were purchased from Duraisamy by Natarajan in the year
1979 under a registered Sale Deed. It also goes on to state that some of
the properties were obtained by Natarajan at a partition that took place
between the sons of Thangavelu Naicker. The relevant recitals are as
follows:
“,jdoapy; fPnH bkhj;j brhj;J tptuj;jpy;
tpthpf;fg;gl;Ls;s brhj;jhdJ fh";rpgu[ k; khtl;lk;. jhk;guk;
tl;lk;. vz;/33. nriya{h; fpuhkk;. Tl;L gl;lh vz;/112?y;
ml';fpa g[db; ra; rh;nt vz;/249-2?y; ml';fpa g{uh tp!;jPuzk;
Vf;fh; 0/80 brd;oy; Vf;fh; 0/14 brd;l;. ed;bra; rh;nt
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
AS.No.30 of 2011
vz;/250?y; ml';fpa g{uh tp!;jPuzk; Vf;fh; 0/18 brd;oy; Vf;fh;
0/02 brd;l;. rh;nt vz;/169-4?y; ml';fpa g{uh tp!;jPuzk; Vf;fh;
0/19 brd;oy; Vf;fh; 0/09 1-2 brd;l;. Mf ,dk; K:d;Wf;Fk;
nrh;jJ
; bkhj;j tp!;jPuzk; Vf;fh; 0/25 1-2 brd;l; epyj;ija[k;
,ju brhj;ija[k; fle;j 19/04/1979?Mk; njjpad;W ek;kpy; 1?tJ
,yf;fkpll; egUf;F fztUk; 2?tJ. 3?tJ ,yf;fkpll;
egh;fSf;F jfg;gdhUk;. 4?tJ 5?tJ ,yf;fkpll; egh;fSf;F
ghl;ldhUkhd jpU/ T.eluh$ ehaf;fh; j-bg/(nyl;) j';fnty;
ehaf;fh; mth;fs; mtUila brhe;j tUthiaf; bfhz;L
mtUila rnfhjuUk; fhy";brd;w j';fnty; ehaf;fh;
FkhuUkhd jpU/ T.Jiurhkp ehaf;fh; (1) kw;Wk;
jpU/ T.Jiurhkp ehaf;fh; Fkhh;j;jp D.ghh;tjp (2)
Mfpnahh;fsplkpUe;J Rahh;$pjkha; fpiuak; bgw;W
mf;fpiuag;gj;jpuk; jhk;guk; rhh;gjpthsh; mYtyfj;jpy; 1/
g[j;jfk;. 1979?Mk; Mz;od; 1581?Mk; Mtz vz;zhf
jpU/ T.eluh$ ehaf;fh; bgahpy; gjpag;gl;Ls;sJk;/
kw;Wk; nkw;go fh";rpgu[ k; khtl;lk;. jhk;guk; tl;lk;. vz;/33
nriya{h; fpuhkk;. Tl;L gl;lh vz;/112-y; ml';fpa ed;bra; rh;nt
vz;/169-2-y; ml';fpa g{uh tp!;jPuzk; Vf;fh; 0/44 brd;oy;
Vf;fh; 0/29 brd;l;. rh;nt vz;/169-3-y; ml';fpa g{uh tp!;jPuzk;
Vf;fh; 0/08 brd;l;. rh;nt vz;/169-5-y; ml';fpa g{uh tp!;jPuzk;
Vf;fh; 0/20 brd;oy; Vf;fh; 0/10 brd;l;. rh;nt vz;/168-6-y;
ml';fpa g{uh tp!;jPuzk; Vf;fh; 0/28 brd;l;. rh;nt vz;/209-4A-
y; ml';fpa g{uh tp!;jPuzk; Vf;fh; 0/41 brd;oy; Vf;fh; 0/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
AS.No.30 of 2011
brd;l;. g[db; ra;; rh;nt vz;/249-2-y; ml';fpa g{uh tp!;jPuzk;
Vf;fh; 0/80 brd;oy; Vf;fh; 0/26 brd;l;. ed;bra;; rh;nt
vz;/250--y; ml';fpa g{uh tp!;jPuzk; Vf;fh; 0/18 brd;oy; Vf;fh;
0/06 brd;l Mf ,dk; VHpw;Fk; nrh;eJ ; bkhj;j tp!;jPuzk; 1
Vf;fh; 21 brd;l epykhdJ jpU/T.eluh$ ehaf;fh; mth;fSf;F
gpJuh$pjkha; ghj;jpag;gl;Lk;/ mtUila FLk;g g{h;tPf
brhj;Jf;fis fpuhk g";rhaj;Jjhuh;fs; Kd;dpiyapy;
tha;bkhHpaha;; ghfk; gphpj;J bfhz;ljpy; mtuJ ghfj;jpw;F
fpilf;fg; bgw;w brhj;jhFk;/ ”
24. The above recitals, in our opinion, would conclusively establish
that there had been a partition between three sons of Thangavelu Naicker,
even before 1979. One of the sons of Thangavelu Naicker, Duraisamy
and his daughter Parvathy had sold certain portions of the suit properties
under a Sale Deed dated 19.04.1979. The fact that the defendant had
launched a suit in OS No.262 of 1979 against Duraisamy, his daughter
and the predecessor of the plaintiffs Natatajan seeking specific
performance and partition of half share of some of the items in this suit
would also show that there was a partition. The claim for half share in
the said suit is because of the fact that the predecessor of the plaintiff had
also agreed to purchase the properties and later he backed out.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
AS.No.30 of 2011
25. Exhibit B13 the Partition Deed would show that the
predecessor of the plaintiffs Natarajan has also purchased certain specific
portions of the suit properties from Duraisamy. The combined effect of all
these factors would be that there had been a partition and the brothers
were enjoying separate properties as their absolute properties. We are
therefore unable to fault the Trial Court for having dismissed the suit for
partition. Even though certain arguments are advanced based on the
Revenue Records with reference to B Schedule property, we do not find
any substance in the claim of the plaintiff that the B Schedule property
belonged to the family and the same is available for division.
26. Insofar as the suit first item is concerned, it is the defence that
the same belonged to Muniammal, mother of Thangavelu Naicker and
that because he took care of her, she handed over the original document
to the defendant and he had sold the property even in the year 1991 to
one Sivaraman. Despite such a plea having been taken in the written
statement, the plaintiffs have not chosen to implead the said Sivaraman in
the suit, thus denying him an opportunity of defending the suit as far as
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
AS.No.30 of 2011
the said item is concerned. Being a purchaser prior to the suit, he would
be a necessary party to the suit. If he had been added he would have had
certain defences open to him. Non-impleading of the purchaser viz.
Sivaraman, in our opinion, would be fatal to the suit in respect of the first
item 1 of A schedule properties.
27. We therefore do not find any reason to interfere with the
conclusions of the Trial Court, the Appeal fails and it is accordingly
dismissed. CMP No.2136 of 2022 and CMP No.8172 of 2023 are
allowed. The other miscellaneous petitions are closed. There shall be no
order as to costs.
(R.SUBRAMANIAN, J .) (R.KALAIMATHI, J.)
jv 02.08.2023
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes /No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
Speaking order/Non speaking order
Additional Documents marked on the side of the Appellants:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
AS.No.30 of 2011
S.No. Date Description
Ex.A7 - Online extract of Town Survey Field Register
issued by Tahsidar, Tambaram
Ex.A8 - Online extract of Town Survey Field Register
issued by Tahsidar, Tambaram
Additional Documents marked on the side of the respondents:
S.No. Date Description
Ex.B12 19.03.2012 Partition Deed in Doc.No.2282/2012 at SRO-
Salaiyur - executed between heirs of
Natarajan
Ex.B13. 21.03.2017 RTI Letter sent by K.Arjunan to the
Tahsildhar, Sholinganallur.
Ex.B14 13.05.2017 RTI Letter sent by K.Arjunan to the Special
Tahsildar, Tambaram with
Acknowledgement Car d
Ex.B15 19.05.2017 Reply from the Deputy Tahsildar,
Sholinganallur along with FMB, Chitta and
Anandgal as enclosures
Ex.B16 30.05.2017 Reply from the Special Tahsildar, Tambaram
enclosing FMB Sketch in Sur.No.146/7 and
Tambaram Town Survey Plan for Ward-I,
Block No.3
Ex.B17 01.08.2017 Reply by Deputy Tahsildar, Tambaram to
K.Arjunan along with 8A file register
Ex.B18 18.08.2017 Reply from the Special Tahsildar, Tambaram
Ex.B19 22.09.2017 Petition to Special Tahsildhar, Tambaram to
cancel Patta
Ex.B20 24.01.2018 Notice for Enquiry issued by the Special
Tahsildhar to Deivasigamani son of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
AS.No.30 of 2011
S.No. Date Description
T.Krishnamurthy.
Ex.B21 05.10.2018 Patta in T.S.No.38 in the name
T.Krishnamurthy S/o.Thangavel
Ex.B22 19.02.2019 Patta in T.S.No.38 in the name of
Deivasigamani and Sridhar son of
T.Krishnamurthy
(R.SUBRAMANIAN, J .) (R.KALAIMATHI, J.)
jv 02.08.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
AS.No.30 of 2011
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
and
R.KALAIMATHI, J.
jv
To
The Additional District Judge,
Fast Track Court No.I,
Chengalpattu
A.S.No.30 of 2011, MP No.2 of 2011
CMP Nos.3501/2020, 17805 & 17811/2021,
2136/2022 & 8172/2023
02.08.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
