Madras High Court
T.Karuppanan @ Pandi (Died) vs T.Duraipandi on 30 April, 2025
Author: G.R.Swaminathan
Bench: G.R.Swaminathan
AS.(MD)No.176 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved On : 21.04.2025
Pronounced On : 30.04.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
A.S.(MD)No.176 of 2019
and
C.M.P.(MD)No.9021 of 2019
1.T.Karuppanan @ Pandi (Died)
2.P.Gunapandian
3.P.Sivabackiam
4.N.Geetha
5.P.Anitha
6.S.Angayarkanni ... Appellants / Defendants
(Appellants 3 to 6 are brought on record as Lrs of the deceased 1st
appellant vide Court order dated 01.04.2025 made in CMP.(MD)No.5779
of 2025 in AS.(MD)No.176 of 2019)
Vs.
T.Duraipandi ... Respondent / Plaintiff
1/15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/05/2025 01:00:21 pm )
AS.(MD)No.176 of 2019
PRAYER : First Appeal filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil
Procedure and 41 Rule 1 of CPC against the Judgment and Decree dated
19.03.2018 passed in O.S.No.80 of 2013 on the file of VI Additional
District Judge, Madurai.
For Appellants : Mr.M.R.Srinivasan
For Respondent : Mr.J.Barathan
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of this Court was delivered by M.JOTHIRAMAN J.)
Unsuccessful defendants have preferred the appeal. The suit is filed
for partition and for separate possession of ½ share in the suit schedule
properties. The trial Court partly decreed the suit by granting ½ share to
the plaintiff in respect of item 1 to 5 and dismissed the suit in respect of
item 6 to 8.
2.For the shake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per
their rank before the trial Court.
3.The brief Case of the plaintiff is as follows:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/05/2025 01:00:21 pm )
The first defendant is the elder brother of the plaintiff and their
father is Thonthi Karuppanan, who died when they were end leaving
behind his wife Elamiammal, the plaintiff and the first defendant as his
legal heirs. The second defendant is the son of the first defendant. The
said Elamiammal used to reside at the residence of the plaintiff and the
first defendant. During her lost days, the plaintiff alone had been looking
after her. Elamiammal died on 02.01.2011 intestate. Item 1 to 4 of the suit
properties are the ancestral properties. Other items stand in the name of
his mother. After demise of Elamiammal, the plaintiff and the first
defendant jointly inherited the suit properties. The plaintiff sent a legal
notice on 20.04.2013 and the defendant sent a reply notice on 04.05.2013.
In response to the same, the plaintiff sent a rejoinder notice on 21.05 .
2013. Hence, the suit.
4.The brief case of the defendant is as follows:-
The item 1 to 3 are the ancestral properties. After demise of their
father, their mother Elamiammal maintained the minor children and out of
her hard earned money. She purchased items 4 to 8 and the property to an
extent of 5 cents in R.S.No.216/9 at Pudhur, Madurai and constructed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/05/2025 01:00:21 pm )
houses therein. She also purchased the land to an extent of 1 cent at
Vellalapatti village. While so, during her life time, she orally partitioned
the suit properties in the year 1983 between the plaintiff and the first
defendant. As per the said partition items 4 to 8 were allotted to the first
defendant. Items 1 to 3 and 1 cent property at Vellalapatti village and 5
cents property at Appanthiruppathi and 5 ½ cents property at TWAD
colony, Thiruppalai and 27 cents of Valaland in S.No.738/6A, 6C at
Vallalapatti village were allotted to the plaintiff. After the said partition
both have been in separate possession and enjoyment of their respective
share of properties over 30 years by paying necessary tax. The plaintiff
created forged sale deed in the name of his son Sudhakaran to an extent of
5 cents in S.No.216/9 at Pudur, Madurai from the said Elamiammal. The
aforesaid Pudur and second item of the suit property were not brought into
the said partition and those properties had been in possession and
enjoyment of the said Elamiammal. While so, the said Elamiammal and
the first defendant jointly executed settlement deed dated 21.02.2007, in
favour of the second defendant in respect of item No.4 of the suit property.
The said Elamiammal executed settlement deed in favour of the second
defendant in respect of item 6 to 8 and thereafter, the second defendant has
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/05/2025 01:00:21 pm )
been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the item 4 and 6 to 8
properties.
5.Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following
issues:-
i)Whether oral partition took place in the year 1983?
ii)Whether the settlement deed dated 21.02.2007 in respect of suit
items 4, 6, 7 and 8 in favour of the second defendant are true and valid?
iii)Whether the plaintiff is entitled for partition as prayed for?
iv)What other relief the plaintiff is entitled?
On the side of the plaintiff, the plaintiff himself examined as P.W.1 and
one Selvam examined as P.W.2 and Ex.A1 to Ex.A18 were marked. On the
side of the defendants, the first defendant himself examined as D.W.1, one
Mohammed Abdul Jaffer was examined as D.W.2, one Murugesan was
examined as D.W.3 and Ex.B1 to Ex.B7 were marked.
6.Findings of the trial Court:-
The properties purchased by the Elaniammal cannot be considered
as, which was purchased as Kartha of the family. She maintained the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/05/2025 01:00:21 pm )
properties being the guardian of the minor plaintiff and the first defendant.
The plaintiff and the defendants are the joint family members and hence,
the plaintiff and the first defendant are entitled only in respect of item 1 to
5. Ex.B1 is the compromise deed during pendency of the suit and hence,
the recitals of the said compromise deed cannot be considered as
admission. Further, there is no averment regarding particulars of the
property allotted to the members of the family. Further, in pursuant to the
said partition mutation of records have not taken place. In Ex.A3 recitals
refers only about self acquired property of Elamiammal and she did not
refer that it was allotted to her in pursuant to the partition held between the
plaintiff and the first defendant. Though, it is referred in Ex.A8 dated
21.02.2007, that the said properties was allotted to her in pursuant to the
said partition, the said Elamiammal did not refer about oral partition in
Ex.A3 & Ex.A9. No particulars about date of oral partition, witnesses of
oral partition disclosed. Ex.A9 sale deed valid one and items 6 to 8 are
not liable for partition.
7.Points for determination arises in this appeal are as follows:
i)Whether oral partition took place in the year 1983?
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/05/2025 01:00:21 pm )
ii)Whether Ex.B1 compromise deed is true and valid?
8.The learned counsel appearing for the appellants / defendants
would submit that in the present appeal under challenge with regard to suit
items 4 and 5 alone. He would submit that oral partition took place
between the plaintiff and the first defendant in the year 1983. As per the
said oral partition, suit items 4 to 8 were allotted to first defendant.
Similarly, suit items 1 to 3, 1 cent of house property and and 27 cents of
land at Vallalapatti village, 5 cents of property at Appanthiruppathi, 5 ½
cents property at Thiruppalai were allotted to the plaintiff. The said oral
partition came to be confirmed subsequently also under Ex.B1 dated
07.07.2014 between the parties. He would submit that there is no
complaint given by the plaintiff that Ex.B1 was obtained under coercion or
under influence. There is no prohibition to effect a partition in oral
understanding and the same is valid under law. To strengthen his
contention, he has relied upon judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India in a case of H.Vasanthi Vs. A.Santha (Dead) through Lrs. And Ors
in Civil Appeal No.7374 OF 2008 dated 16.08.2023 dated to show that
there is no prohibition to effect a partition otherwise than through an
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/05/2025 01:00:21 pm )
instrument in writing by duly complying with the requirement of law and
in other words, the division may also be effected under a settlement or oral
understanding. The learned counsel further would submit that some of the
properties left out in the suit schedule. Though the plaintiff claiming title
over the valuable house and shop properties situated at Pudur and the sale
deed executed to that effect was not supported by any valid consideration.
9.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent /
plaintiff would submit that the suit properties 1 to 4 are ancestral
properties and other items are purchased by the mother of the plaintiff
through sale deed. The properties purchased by the mother of the plaintiff
one Elamiammal sold the property to the plaintiff's son for a sum of Rs.
4,95,000/-. The property purchased by the said Elamiammal is the
absolute property and she has every right to sell the same. There was no
oral partition taken place in the year 1983 as alleged by the defendants.
The trial Court after considering the evidences and documents comes to a
conclusion that the plaintiff is entitled for partition as prayed for in the
suit.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/05/2025 01:00:21 pm )
10.It is pertinent to mention that the suit dismissed with regard to
the suit schedule item 6 to 8. Aggrieved over the same, no appeal has
been preferred by the plaintiff.
11.The suit schedule consisting of 1 to 8 items. It is an admitted
fact that suit schedule 1 to 3 items are ancestral properties and the suit
item 4 and 5 were purchased by Elamiammal in the name of her minor
children namely the plaintiff and the first defendant. Suit item 6 to 8 were
purchased by the said Elamiammal.
12.As per Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, any
property possessed by a female hindu, whether acquired before or after the
commencement of this Act, shall be held by her as full owner thereof and
not as a limited owner. In view of the Section 14 of the Act, the property
purchased by the Elamiammal are absolute properties of her. D.W.1 in his
cross examination categorically admits that the plaintiff and D.W.1 are
having equal right over the suit items 4 and 5 separately. D.W.1 deposed
that an oral partition was held in the year 1983, may be in the month of
September or October. He does not remember the date of oral partition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/05/2025 01:00:21 pm )
13.It is pertinent to mention that the suit item 1 to 3 properties
originally belonged to the plaintiff's father Thonthi Karuppanan. The said
Thonthi Karuppanan died when the plaintiff and the first defendant were
young leaving behind his wife Elamiammal. Thereafter, the said
Elamiammal maintained the said ancestral properties being the natural
guardian of the minor plaintiff and the first defendant. The properties
purchased by the said Elamiammal cannot be taken into account as such,
which was purchased as Kartha of the Hindu Joint Family. When item 4
and 5 of the properties purchased in the name of the plaintiff and the first
defendant by the said Elamiammal, when they were minor, for the welfare
of the family. Therefore, such kind of property became joint family
properties.
14.It is relevant to refer the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
reported in AIR 2011 SC 2344 – Rangammal v. Kuppuswami wherein it
has been held that “when a person is bound to prove the existence of any
fact, it is said that burden of proof lies on that person. Thus, the burden of
proving fact always lies upon the person who asserts it. Unless such
burden is discharged, the other party is not required to be called upon to
prove his case.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/05/2025 01:00:21 pm )
15.It is the specific case of the defendants that during the life time
of the said Elamiammal, she orally partitioned the suit properties in the
year 1983 between the plaintiff and the first defendant and the same came
to be confirmed in Ex.A8 settlement deed dated 21.02.2007. It is also main
contention of the defendants that Ex.B1 consent deed dated 07.07.2014
reflects the earlier oral partition, wherein, the plaintiff and the first
defendant are signed and their sons are also signed as witnesses.
16.If the above contention of the defendants in connection with
Ex.B1 consent deed dated 07.07.2014, is accepted, then the defendants
ought to have filed a petition to record the compromise before the trial
Court. Admittedly, no steps was taken by the parties to settle the issue.
Moreover, Ex.B1 came to be existence after filing of this suit, in such
circumstances, there cannot be a full reliance on the document alone. In
order to prove the oral partition, witnesses D.W.2 and D.W.3 are
examined. D.W.2 Mohammed Abdul Jaffer, in his cross examination,
states that he did not know about what they have spoken before the
partitioning the properties and did not know how they are enjoying the
properties. D.W.3 Murugesan in his cross examination, states that he does
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/05/2025 01:00:21 pm )
not know where the plaintiff and the first defendant working. He was a
cultivating tenant under the defendant from 2002 to 2005. It is seen from
the records, D.W.3 was examined on 26.10.2017 wherein the deposition
the age of D.W.3 is mentioned as 48 years. When D.W.3 speaks about the
oral partition said to have been held in the year 1983 hardly at that point of
time, D.W.3 might have been the age of 14 or 15. From the evidence of
D.W1 to D.W.3 reveals that they could not substantiate particulars about
the date of oral partition and the manner in which they have orally
partitioned the properties.
17.The said Elamiammal referred in Ex.A3 sale deed dated
27.01.2006 about the properties that it was her self acquired property and
she did not refer that it was allotted to her in pursuant to the partition held
between the plaintiff and the first defendant. A perusal of Ex.A8
settlement deed dated 21.02.2007 shows that the property was allotted
pursuant to the partition held between the plaintiff and the first defendant.
However, the said Elamiammal did not refer anything about the oral
partition in Ex.A3 dated 27.01.2006 and Ex.A9 settlement deed dated
21.02.2007, as mentioned in Ex.A8. The burden lies on the defendants not
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/05/2025 01:00:21 pm )
discharged to prove the oral partition. The defendants not chosen to
examine panchayathars who were present at the time of entering oral
partition. The properties purchased by the said Elamiammal is the absolute
properties of her and she has every right to deal with the same
independently and any alienations made by the said Elamiammal cannot
be questioned. We are of the view that the trial Court upon considering
the evidences and documents arrived conclusion that the plaintiff is
entitled ½ share in item 1 to 5. There is no reason to interfere with the
findings of the Court below and there is no merits in this appeal and the
same is liable to be dismissed.
18.In the result, this first appeal is dismissed and the judgment and
decree dated 19.03.2018 passed in O.S.No.80 of 2013 on the file of VI
Additional District Judge, Madurai is hereby confirmed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
(G.R.S., J.) & (M.J.R., J.)
30.04.2025
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
gns
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/05/2025 01:00:21 pm )
To
VI Additional District Judge, Madurai
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/05/2025 01:00:21 pm )
G.R.SWAMINATHAN,J.
and
M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.
gns
Pre-Delivery Judgement made in
30.04.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/05/2025 01:00:21 pm )
