Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 12931 Mad
Judgement Date : 21 September, 2023
S.A.(MD)No.481 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 21.09.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VADAMALAI
S.A.(MD)No.481 of 2023
Rajam ... Appellant/Plaintiff
Vs.
1.Rajamony ... 1st Respondent/1st Defendant
2.Sarasam
3.Sundarraj ... Respondent Nos.2 & 3 /
Defendant Nos.2 & 3
PRAYER: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Civil
Procedure Code, 1908, against the judgment and decree passed in
A.S.No.56 of 2009 on the file of the Subordinate Judge,
Padmanabhapuram dated 21.02.2013 partly confirming the judgment and
decree passed in O.S.No.82 of 2004 on the file of the Principal District
Munsif Court, Padmanabhapuram dated 30.01.2009.
For Appellant : Mr.C.K.M.Appaji
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/7
S.A.(MD)No.481 of 2023
JUDGMENT
This Second Appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated
21.02.2013 passed in A.S.No.56 of 2009 on the file of the Subordinate
Judge, Padmanabhapuram, partly confirming the judgment and decree
dated 30.01.2009 passed in O.S.No.82 of 2004 on the file of the Principal
District Munsif, Padmanabhapuram.
2. The brief facts of the case:
The appellant is the plaintiff in O.S.No.82 of 2004 on the file of
the Principal District Munsif Court, Padmanabhapuram. She has filed the
said suit for partition against the defendants 1 to 3. Defendants 1 and 2
are the brother and sister of the plaintiff and the third defendant is the
husband of the plaintiff. The defendants filed a detailed written
statements. Both side let in oral and documentary evidences. After hot
contest, the Trial Court partly decreed the suit. Aggrieved by the
judgment and decree of the Trial Court, the first defendant filed Civil
Appeal in A.S.No.56 of 2009 before the First Appellate
Court/Subordinate Court, Padmanabhapuram. The First Appellate Court,
after considering both side arguments and both side evidences, partly
allowed the appeal and decreed the suit as prayed for by the plaintiff.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.(MD)No.481 of 2023
3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the
records.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff has argued that
there are five items of suit properties, the item Nos.1 to 4 are ancestral
properties of the plaintiff’s father and the 5th item No.5 is self acquired
property of the plaintiff’s father. The plaintiff and the defendants 1 and 2
are brother and sisters. The plaintiff filed the suit seeking partition of
1/9th share in item Nos.1 to 4 and 1/3rd share in item No.5 of suit
properties. The Trial Court came to the conclusion that the plaintiff and
the defendants 1 and 2 are entitled to 1/3rd share each in item Nos.1 to 5
of suit properties. But, the trial Court partly decreed the suit that the
plaintiff is entitled to 1/9th share in all item Nos.1 to 5 of suit properties.
The first defendant preferred the appeal in A.S.No.56 of 2009 before the
Sub Court, Padmanabhapuram. The First Appellate Court came to
conclusion that the plaintiff is entitled 1/3rd share in the 5th item, but
partly allowed and decreed that the plaintiff is entitled 1/3rd share in 5th
item and confirmed the decree of trial Court that the plaintiff is entitled
1/9th share in item Nos.1 to 4. Though the First Appellate Court decreed https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.(MD)No.481 of 2023
the suit as prayed for, but the Trial Court came to the conclusion that the
plaintiff and the defendants 1 to 3 are entitled to 1/3rd share in all items
Nos.1 to 5. Therefore, the plaintiff has fair chance in this Second Appeal.
Therefore the Second Appeal may be admitted to file.
5. On hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and on perusal
of records, it is clear that the plaintiff filed the original suit in O.S.No.82
of 2004 before the Principal District Munsif Court, Padmanabhapuram
seeking the reliefs of partition of 1/9th share in the item Nos.1 to 4 of suit
properties and 1/3rd share in the item No.5 of suit properties. The plaintiff
herself has admitted in her evidence that she filed the suit for partition
seeking 1/9th share in item Nos.1 to 4 and 1/3rd share in 5th item of suit
properties. On perusal of records, the Trial Court has passed decree and
judgment that the plaintiff is entitled 1/9th share in all items Nos.1 to 5
and thereby partly decreed. Being aggrieved the first defendant filed
appeal in A.S.No.56 of 2009 against the decree and judgment of the Trial
Court. But, unfortunately the First Appellate Court decreed the suit in
granting entire reliefs as prayed for the plaintiff and negative the
defendants. That is, the plaintiff’s prayer in the main suit who sought
1/9th share in items Nos.1 to 4 and 1/3 rd share in the 5th item. So, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.(MD)No.481 of 2023
relief sought for the plaintiff is fully granted by the First Appellate Court.
Admittedly, against the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court,
the first defendant has preferred the Second Appeal in S.A.(MD) No.528
of 2013 before this Court and the same is pending. Now, the
appellant/plaintiff has preferred this Second Appeal after lapse of 10
years against the judgment and decree in A.S.No.56 of 2009 of
Subordinate Judge, Padmanabhapuram contending that the Trial Court
came to the conclusion that the plaintiff and the defendants 1 and 2 are
entitled to 1/3rd share each in all the items Nos.1 to 5 of suit properties,
but decreed only 1/9th share in the properties. It is not the case that
subsequent to the filing original suit, the plaintiff sought relief of
partition 1/3rd share in item Nos.1 to 4 also from the date of her plaint and
till the disposal of the 1st appeal or till the date of filing of this Second
Appeal. The plaintiff admitted that she sought only 1/9th share in item
Nos.1 to 4 of suit properties as they are ancestral properties. Now,
beyond the relief of 1/9th share sought for by her, she filed this Second
Appeal seeking 1/3rd share, which is not maintainable as her relief sought
in the original suit is fully granted by the Courts below. In such
circumstances, the appellant/plaintiff has no valid ground to file Second
Appeal or any question of law in her favour. Considering the facts, there
is prima facie no question of law arisen in this Second Appeal in favour https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.(MD)No.481 of 2023
of the appellant/plaintiff. Therefore, considering the above facts and
circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that this Second Appeal is
liable to be dismissed in the admission stage itself.
6.In the result, as there is no substantial question of law involved
in this appeal, this Second Appeal is dismissed at the admission stage
itself. No costs.
21.09.2023
NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No vsd
To
1.The Subordinate Judge, Padmanabhapuram.
2.The Principal District Munsif, Padmanabhapuram.
3.The Section Officer, VR Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.(MD)No.481 of 2023
P.VADAMALAI, J.
vsd
ORDER MADE IN S.A.(MD)No.481 of 2023
21.09.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!