Madras High Court
K. Ravikumar vs D.Tamilarasi on 25 October, 2024
Author: T.V.Thamilselvi
Bench: T.V.Thamilselvi
S.A. No. 724 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 25.10.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI
S.A. No.724 of 2024
and
C.M.P.No. 23735 of 2024
1. K. Ravikumar
2. Valli
3. K. Subramani ... Appellants
Versus
1. D.Tamilarasi
K.Kasammbu (deceased)
2. The Chairman,
Slum Clearance Board,
Having office at Chepauk,
Chennai-600 005. ... Respondents
Prayer:- Second Appeal has been filed under Section 100 C.P.C., against
the judgment and decree dated 22.12.2022 passed in A.S.No.15 of 2015 on
the file of III Addl. City Civil Court, Chennai reversing judgment and decree
passed in O.S.No.359 of 2012 on the file the II Asst. City Civil Court,
Chennai.
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A. No. 724 of 2024
For Appellants : Mr.K.Raveendran
For Respondents : Mr.S.Karthikeyan for R2
JUDGEMENT
Challenging the reversal findings of the first appellate court, the
defendants 2 to 4 have preferred this Second Appeal. Before the trial court,
the 1st respondent/plaintiff being one of legal heir of P.Kamalakannan
claiming 1/4th share in the suit properties listed as two items of property,
more particularly 'A' schedule property admeasuring an extent of 340 sq.ft of
flat at Door No.1469, 27th Cross Street, T.P.Chatram, Shenoy Nagar,
Chennai and 'B' schedule property admeasuirng an extent of 180 sq.ft. of flat
consisting of house site at No.84/3, Plot No.183, bearing Door No.54/A,
New No. H9, Lakshmi Street, Kamaraj Nagar, Kilpauk, Chennai and both
the properties were allotted to parent of plaintiff Kamalakannan and his wife
wife K.Kasammbu.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are denoted as per the
ranking in the suit.
3. Before the trial court, the plaintiff filed a suit claiming 1/4th share in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the properties, which were alloted to her father Kamalakannan and after his
demise, all of his legal heirs viz., Plaintiff, 1st defendant/wife, brothers and
sister, each entitled 1/4th share. However, during the pendency of the suit, the
1st defendant died. But, the defendants denied the plaintiff's claim. Before
the trial court, both parties adduced evidence and on considering the oral and
documentary evidence, the trial court dismissed the suit. Against which, she
preferred an appeal in A.S.No. 15 of 2015 and the first appellate judge
independently analysed the evidence on record and finally held that the
property was jointly allotted in the name of plaintiff's father and his wife
Kasammbu and during the pendency of suit, both were died intestate. So, as
a legal heir, all the three, plaintiff, defendants 2 and 3 became entitled for
equal share in both A and B schedule of suit properties. As such, the plaintiff
is entitled for 1/3rd share in the suit properties instead of 1/4th share as
claimed by her in the suit, owing to the subsequent event of death of 1 st
defendant. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed and the decree passed by
the trial judge was set aside. Challenging the said findings, the defendants 2
to 4 have preferred this Second Appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4. The learned counsel for appellants would submit that the first
appellate judge erroneously granted the relief in favor of plaintiff without
considering the evidence properly. In fact, the entire instalment amount was
settled by the defendants 2 to 4 to the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board
during the life time of their father and hence, the properties are absolutely
belong to them. Hence, he prayed to admit this Second Appeal.
5. On perusal of records, before the trial court, no evidence was
adduced to prove that 'A' schedule property had been allotted exclusively in
the name of 1st defendant nor any proof that contested defendant paid
instalments. In fact, it is an admitted fact that the property was originally
allotted to Kamalakannan and his wife as per the allotment granted by the
Slum Clearance Board. However, during the pendency of proceedings, both
were died intestate. So, their legal heirs are entitled for their share.
Moreover, the plaintiff filed a suit in the year of 2012 and all the legal heirs
of Kamalakannan and Kasammbu, the plaintiff and defendants 2 and 3 are
entitled for 1/3rd share in the suit was rightly observed by the first appellate
court, which needs no interference of this court. Hence, this Second Appeal
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
is liable to be dismissed as there is no question of law involved for
consideration. Accordingly, this Second Appeal is dismissed as no merit. No
costs. Consequently, the connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
25.10.2024
rpp
To
III Addl. Judge,
City Civil Court,
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.
rpp
25.10.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
