Thursday, 07, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

A.Chandrasekaran vs T.K.Lakshmi
2024 Latest Caselaw 20371 Mad

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 20371 Mad
Judgement Date : 28 October, 2024

Madras High Court

A.Chandrasekaran vs T.K.Lakshmi on 28 October, 2024

Author: T.V.Thamilselvi

Bench: T.V.Thamilselvi

                                                                       S.A. No.728 of 2024

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                             DATED      : 28.10.2024

                                                     CORAM:

                                   THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI

                                                S.A. No.728 of 2024
                                                        and
                                              C.M.P.No.23814 of 2024


                     P.Athmaram Achari (died)

                     A.Balachandar (died)

                     1. A.Chandrasekaran
                     2. V.Hemalatha
                     3. A.Thirunavukkarasu
                     4. A.Damodaran                                    ... Appellants

                                                       Vs.


                     1. T.K.Lakshmi
                     2. Pushpavalli
                     3. Kasthuri
                     4. K.Harikumar
                     5. K.Balaji
                     6. Samundeeswari
                     7. K.Sundar
                     8. B.Suguna                                       .. Respondents



                     1/7

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                   S.A. No.728 of 2024

                     PRAYER : Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Code of Civil

                     Procedure, to set aside the judgment and decree dated 27.11.2023 made in

                     A.S.No.36 of 2019 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Arakkonam

                     confirming the judgment and decree dated 20.06.2019 passed in O.S.No.36

                     of 2011 on the file of District Munsif Court, Arakkonam.

                                        For Appellants          : Mr.N.Krishna Kumar


                                                         JUDGMENT

The appellants, who are the legal heirs of 2nd defendant have

preferred this Second Appeal. Challenging the concurrent findings of the

courts below rendered in A.S.No. 36 of 2019 by the Subordinate Judge,

Arakkonam arising out of trial court findings in O.S.No.36 of 2011 on the

file of District Munsif Court, Arakkonam, this Second Appeal was

preferred by legal heirs of 2nd defendant.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are denoted as per the

ranking in the suit.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

3. Before the trial court, the plaintiff filed a suit for partition praying

to allot 1/4th share in the suit property stating that entire suit property

belongs to one Parasuraman Achari, who purchased the same by way of

registered sale deed dated 07.07.1960 and so, the same is his self-acquired

property. Thereafter, he died on 17.03.1999 leaving behind his two sons

and two daughters. The 2nd daughter, who filed a suit claiming partition

against the defendants and legal heirs of another son Krishnamoorthy. The

2nd defendant, another son of Parasuraman Achari filed a written statement

stating that all the legal heirs have orally relinquished their respective share

in his favour, thereby he possessed and enjoyed the property and a oral

partition was also pleaded. Before the trial court, both parties have adduced

oral and documentary evidence. The trial court framed three issues and the

foremost issue is whether the plaintiff is entitled for 1/4th share in the suit

property based on the sale deed. On considering both oral and documentary

evidence, the trial court decreed the suit holding that the suit property is a

self-acquired property, wherein she is entitled for 1/4th share. In respect of

oral partition, as per the ratio laid down in the authority reported in 2017

(2) MWN (Civil) 241, in the case of Chithra vs. Saroja and others, the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

trial court held that the burden is casted upon the 2nd defendant to prove the

plea of oral partition, but the same was not proved by adducing any

evidence. Therefore, the objection raised by the defendants declined.

Accordingly, the suit was decreed by allotting 1/4th share in favour of

plaintiff. Challenging the same, the defendants preferred an appeal in

A.S.No. 36 of 2019 before the Subordinate Judge, Arakkonam, wherein the

first appellate judge independently analysed the facts and evidence on

record and finally concludes that the suit property is a self-acquired

property of plaintiff's father, but the defendants failed to prove their case.

Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed by confirming the findings of the

trial court. Challenging the concurrent findings, the legal heirs of 2nd

defendant preferred this Second Appeal.

4. The learned counsel for appellants would submit that the courts

below ailed to take note of the fact that in the oral partition, the suit

property was allotted to appellants' father Athmaram Achari and subsequent

to that, he was in possession and enjoyment of the same. Furthermore,

though the same was proved by producing house tax receipts, the courts

below failed to appreciate the same. So, he pleaded that sufficient question

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

of law was involved for consideration and hence, he prayed to admit this

Second Appeal on the following question of law :-

(a) Is the lower appellate court justified in decreeing the

suit for partition when the 1st respondent relinquished her right

to file Suit under Art. 110 of Limitation Act?

(2) Is the courts below are justify in decree the suit by

partition granting 1/4th share to the 1st respondent over looking

the evidence on record the appellants father is the absolute

owner of suit property by oral partition coupled with his

possession vide Ex.B1 and B2 and P.W.1?

5. Considering the facts and circumstances and on perusal of records,

it reveals that the defendants pleaded the plea of ouster of co-sharer before

the trial court. But there is no specific averment in respect of ouster of co-

sharer, on the other hand, he also contended that there was a oral partition

effected between the family members and the same was also not proved

and same was rightly observed by the courts below, which needs no

interference of this court. Admittedly, the suit property is a self-acquired

property of plaintiff's father, in which she is entitled for 1/4th share and both

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

the courts below have rightly arrived a conclusion, which needs no

interference of this court. Furthermore, the learned counsel for appellants

would submit that there is a house site in the suit property and admittedly,

the entire extent of suit property is 3600 sq.ft., in which, the plaintiff is

entitled to claim her exclusive right of 1/4th share. Hence, I do not find any

merit in this Second Appeal as there is no question of law involved for

consideration as claimed by the appellants. Accordingly, this Second

Appeal is dismissed as no merit. No costs. Consequently, the connected

Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed.




                                                                                       28.10.2024

                     Index      : Yes / No
                     Internet   : Yes / No
                     Speaking/Non-speaking order
                     rpp

                     To

                     Sub-Judge,
                     Arakkonam.






https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis





                                  T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.


                                                      rpp









                                             28.10.2024






https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter