Madras High Court
Muthu vs Subramanian (Died) on 3 September, 2024
Author: B.Pugalendhi
Bench: B.Pugalendhi
S.A.(MD).No.541 of 2024
THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 03.09.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI
S.A.(MD).No.541 of 2024
Muthu ... Petitioner
Vs
1. Subramanian (Died)
2. Vadivelu
3. Kaliammal
4. Vadivukarasi
5. Kasthuri
6. Kannaki ... Respondents
(*Respondents
3 to 6 are Brought On Record as LRs of
the Deceased first respondent
vide order dated 30.03.2022
in C.M.P(MD)No.1625/2022 in
S.A(MD)SR.No.12581/2020.)
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.(MD).No.541 of 2024
PRAYER: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure
Code set aside the judgment and decree, dated 01.08.2018 made in A.S
No.6 of 2016, on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Ramanathapuram,
confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 20.07.2011 made in O.S.No.
20 of 2007 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate,
Thiruvadanai.
For Appellant : Mr.PT.S.Narendravasan,
For R4 to R6 : Mr.S.Muniyandi
*****
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff has filed this second appeal as against the concurrent
findings of the Courts below.
2.The plaintiff has filed the suit for the relief of declaration and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
injunction for the suit schedule property in S.No.85/2v to an extent of 2.2
acres.
3.The case of the plaintiff is that he is the only son of Chinnaya
Servai. The property in S.No.85/2v is the property of Chinnaya Servai
and therefore, it has to be conferred only on him. However, a joint patta
has been recorded in the revenue records in the name of the first
defendant/Subramanian. According to the plaintiff, the said
Subramanian is the son born to his mother through another person
namely, Ramalinga Servai. Therefore, the first defendant is not the son
of Chinnaya Servai, but he was born to Nacharammal/mother of the
appellant.
4.Before the trial Court, the plaintiff has examined himself as P.W.
1 and marked the documents as Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.8. After considering the
oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court has dismissed the suit by
observing that the first defendant is the son of the plaintiff's parents. As
against which, the plaintiff has preferred an appeal suit before the learned
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Subordinate Judge, Ramanathapuram, in A.S No.6 of 2016. The lower
appellate Court has also confirmed the judgment and decree passed by
the trial Court. Therefore, the plaintiff/appellant has filed the present
second appeal.
5.This Court has considered the rival submissions made and
perused the materials available on record.
6.The trial Court has considered the documents Ex.B9 and Ex.B10,
which are registered documents executed by the said Nacharammal
mentioning the first defendant as son of Chinnaya Servai. Apart from
that the marriage invitation and identity cards were taken into
consideration by the trial Court to arrive at the conclusion that the first
defendant is the son of Chinnaya Servai. The defendants have also relied
on the partition deed arrived at between the plaintiff and the first
defendant in the year 1973. Pursuant to which, patta for the subject
property was also transferred in the name of the first defendant and he
has also constructed a house and the tax receipts Ex.B3 (series) were also
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
placed before the trial Court.
7.In view of the above discussion this Court does not find any
reason to interfere with the judgments of the Courts below. Therefore,
this Court is not inclined to entertain the second appeal. Accordingly,
this second appeal stands dismissed. No costs.
03.09.2024
Internet :Yes
Index :Yes/No
NCC : Yes/No
LR
TO:
1.The Subordinate Judge,
Ramanathapuram.
2.The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate,
Thiruvadanai..
3. The Section Officer,
VR Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
B.PUGALENDHI, J.
LR
Judgment made in
Dated:
03.09.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
