Madras High Court
Chinnapaiyan vs Periyaponnu on 20 February, 2025
Author: N. Sathish Kumar
Bench: N. Sathish Kumar
A.S.No.211 of 2022 & Cross Objection No.96 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 20-02-2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR
Appeal Suit No.211 of 2022
& C.M.P.No.7555 of 2022
and
Cross Objection No.96 of 2022
A.S.No.211 of 2022
Chinnapaiyan
S/o. Marimuthu
..... Appellant
-Versus-
1. Periyaponnu
W/o. Chinnapaiyan
2. Nithiya
W/o. Ramachandran &
D/o Chinnapaiyan
..... Respondents
Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 praying to
set aside decree and judgement dated 16.10.2019 made in O.S.No.173 of 2015
on the file of the learned I Additional District Judge, Salem, Salem District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1 of 23
A.S.No.211 of 2022 & Cross Objection No.96 of 2022
1.Periaponnu
W/o. Chinnapaiyan
2.Nithya
W/o. Ramachandran &
D/o Chinnapaiyan
..... Appellants
-Versus-
Chinnapaiyan
S/o.Marimuthu
..... Respondent
Appeal under Order LXI, Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908,
praying to set aside the decree and judgement dated 16.10.2019 made in
O.S.No.173 of 2015 on the file of the learned I Additional District Judge,
Salem, Salem District insofar as dismissal of the suit for the part of their claim
for partition.
For Appellant in : Mr.S.Rajesh Ramanathan
and Respondent in
Cross.Obj.No.96 of
For Respondent(s) : Mr.R.Meenal
in A.S.No.211 of
2022 and
Appellant(s) in
Cross Obj. No.96 of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2 of 23
A.S.No.211 of 2022 & Cross Objection No.96 of 2022
COMMON JUDGEMENT
A.S. No. 211 of 2022 has been filed by the defendant challenging the
judgment and decree granting a preliminary decree for a partition of one-half
share in respect of suit Item No. 3 in favour of the 2nd plaintiff and
maintenance at the rate of Rs. 4,000/- per month from the date of plaint, while
Cross Objection No. 96 of 2022 has been filed by the plaintiffs challenging the
dismissal of the suit for the part of their claim for partition in respect of suit
Item Nos. 1 and 2.
2.1 The appellant in A.S.No.211 of 2022 and the respondent in the Cross
Objection No.96 of 2022 is the defendant, and the respondents in A.S.No.211
of 2022 and the appellants in Cross Objection No.96 of 2022 are the plaintiffs
in the suit.
2.2 The parties in the appeal and cross objection will now be referred to
according to their array in the litigation for convenience and to prevent
misunderstandings.
3.0 The plaintiffs pleaded in their plaint as follows:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3 of 23
A.S.No.211 of 2022 & Cross Objection No.96 of 2022
3.1 The plaintiffs are the wife and daughter of the defendant. The 1st
plaintiff married the defendant 32 years ago, and through their lawful wedlock,
a male child named Chandrasekar, and a female child, the 2nd plaintiff named
Nithya, were born. The plaintiffs and the defendant constitute a Hindu
Undivided Joint Family.
3.2 The 1st plaintiff and the defendant were living happily as husband
and wife for 6 years, and thereafter, the attitude of the defendant got changed
like anything, and he had started to quarrel with the 1st plaintiff without any
reason. The character of the defendant had become worse day by day.
3.3 While so, the 2nd plaintiff was given in marriage in a simple manner.
The 2nd plaintiff was not given any sreedhan. The 1st plaintiff had tried her
level best to reform the defendant for leading a happy married life with him, but
all her sincere efforts went in vain.
3.4 While so in 2009, all of a sudden, the defendant quarrelled with the
1st plaintiff without any reason and had driven her out from the matrimonial
home and retained her son, Chandrasekar, alone with him. Thereafter, the
defendant was not amenable to any kind of settlement made by the relatives or
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4 of 23
A.S.No.211 of 2022 & Cross Objection No.96 of 2022
mediators. The defendant has been leading a wayward life all along with his
son. The defendant neglected to maintain the 1st plaintiff. The marital bond
between the 1st plaintiff and the defendant is still subsisting. While so, on
29.03.2015, their son died by committing suicide. Even after the death of their
only son, there is no change in the attitude of the defendant.
3.5 The suit properties are undivided joint family properties of the
plaintiffs and the defendant. The defendant was having ancestral properties
covered under Patta Nos. 589, 185, and 321 of Selathampatty village in Salem
Taluk. He was in common possession and enjoyment of the same with his
father, Marimuthu; brother, Kandasamy; and sisters, Rajammal and Kamala.
Out of the income from the ancestral properties and out of the joint family
income, the suit Item No. 1 of the property was purchased in the name of the
defendant through a registered sale deed dated 25.02.1993 vide Doc. No. 429 of
1993 on the file of the Sub Registrar, Suramangalam; the suit Item No. 2 of the
property was gifted in favor of the defendant by his father, Marimuthu, through
a registered settlement deed dated 16.04.2010 vide Doc. No. 2851 of 2010 on
the file of the Sub Registrar, Suramangalam. While so, on 29.05.2012, the
defendant, his father, brother, and sisters partitioned their ancestral properties
through a registered partition deed vide doc. No. 3431 of 2012 on the file of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5 of 23
A.S.No.211 of 2022 & Cross Objection No.96 of 2022
Sub Registrar, Suramangalam. The properties shown under B-Schedule in the
said partition deed were allotted to the share of the defendant. By throwing all
these properties into one hotchpotch, the defendant was in common possession
and enjoyment of the properties along with the 2nd plaintiff and his son -
Chandrasekar. However, the plaintiffs and the defendant have been in joint and
constructive ownership and enjoyment of the properties since the
aforementioned Chandrasekar passed away without being married, leaving the
1st plaintiff (mother) as his sole Class-I legal successor. There has been no
partition by metes and bounds among them till today.
3.6 The defendant wantonly neglected the 1st plaintiff without providing
any maintenance for her food, clothing, shelter, or essential expenses. After she
was neglected by her husband, the 1st plaintiff has been suffering a lot for her
livelihood. She has no permanent income. She has been mentally and physically
suffering for her livelihood. She is in need of Rs.4,000/- per month for her
maintenance. Whereas the defendant is leading a very wonderful and colourful
life with his earnings and with his properties. The defendant is duty bound to
maintain his wife (1st plaintiff). Hence, the suit for partition and maintenance.
4.1 The defendant filed his written statement admitting the marriage with
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6 of 23
A.S.No.211 of 2022 & Cross Objection No.96 of 2022
the 1st plaintiff 32 years ago and, inter alia, contending that when his son was
1½ years old, the 1st plaintiff had deserted him voluntarily and had been living
separately without any sufficient cause. He had no connection with the 1st
plaintiff ever since then, and he is not the biological father of the 2nd plaintiff.
The plaintiffs and he never constituted a joint family as alleged by the plaintiffs.
The 1st plaintiff and he never lived happily as husband and wife. The 1st
plaintiff had left the matrimonial home about 28 years ago and has been living
separately on her own.
4.2. He had nothing to do with the 2nd plaintiff. He was not aware of the
birth and the marriage of the 2nd plaintiff, as the 2nd plaintiff is not his
daughter. It is only the 1st plaintiff who has been living a wayward life. The 1st
plaintiff never visited her son in the village, and the marriage between him and
the 1st plaintiff was dissolved as per the custom of the community, and ever
since then, there has been no contact with him. The suit properties are separate
properties of the defendant. The property, which was gifted to the defendant by
his father, is separate property of him, and neither the plaintiff nor anyone can
claim any share in the same. No ancestral properties are available for partition.
4.3. The defendant was doing business in silver, and he had purchased the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7 of 23
A.S.No.211 of 2022 & Cross Objection No.96 of 2022
properties and has been enjoying the same separately. There was no hotchpotch.
The properties are separate properties of the defendant, and he has been in
possession and enjoyment of the same as absolute owner.
4.4 The 1st plaintiff has been residing at Kamalapuram, which is nearly
20 km away from the suit properties. The 1st plaintiff having left the family
about 28 years ago on her own volition, she will not have any right to claim
maintenance.
5. In reply, the plaintiffs pleaded that the mother of the defendant is none
other than the paternal aunt of the 1st plaintiff. Whenever the defendant ill-
treated the 1st plaintiff, the 1st plaintiff had to leave him and go to her parents’
abode at Kamalapuram. Owing to the close relationship while the 1st plaintiff
stayed in her parents’ house, the defendant often used to visit the 1st plaintiff
and her parents.
6. Based on the above pleadings, the following issues were framed by the
trial court for trial:
(1) Whether the 1st plaintiff is entitled to maintenance as prayed for?
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
8 of 23
A.S.No.211 of 2022 & Cross Objection No.96 of 2022
(2) Whether the suit item of properties is joint family properties or
separate properties of the defendant?
(3) Whether the 2nd plaintiff is entitled to 1/2 share in the suit properties?
7. During the trial, on the side of the plaintiffs, the 1st plaintiff,
Periyaponnu, examined herself as P.W.1, and in support of her case, Govindaraj
and Soundararajan were examined as P.W.2 and P.W.3, respectively, and
Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.8 were marked. On the side of the defendant, the defendant,
Chinnapaiyan, himself was examined as D.W.1, and in support of his defence,
one Mariappan was examined as D.W.2, and Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.3 were marked.
8. Based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced on either side,
the trial court decreed the suit, granting a preliminary decree in favour of the
2nd plaintiff for a half share in suit item No. 3 of the property alone and for
maintenance of the 2nd plaintiff at the rate of Rs. 4,000/- per month and
dismissed the suit for partition in respect of suit item Nos. 1 & 2. Challenging
the preliminary decree in favour of the plaintiff for partition of ½ share in the
suit item No. 3 and decree of maintenance, the defendant has come up with A.S.
No. 211 of 2022, while the plaintiffs have come up with a cross objection in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
9 of 23
A.S.No.211 of 2022 & Cross Objection No.96 of 2022
A.S. No. 96 of 2022, aggrieved by the dismissal part of the suit.
9. Heard Mr.S.Rajesh Ramanathan, learned counsel for the defendant and
Mrs.R.Meenal learned counsel for the plaintiffs.
10. The suit was filed for partition and maintenance until the division of
the suit properties.
11. The plaintiff pleaded that the suit properties are ancestral properties.
The trial court decreed the suit in part by granting a preliminary decree for
partition of one-half share in the suit item No.3 alone and dismissed the suit in
respect of suit item Nos.1 & 2, holding that they are individual properties of the
defendant.
12. According to the plaintiffs, the suit item Nos. 1 and 2 are also joint
family properties, and after the death of the only son of the 1st plaintiff and the
defendant, who died unmarried, the 1st plaintiff is entitled to a share of the
deceased unmarried son.
13. The defendant denied that he deserted the 1st plaintiff and that the
suit properties are his separate properties and the plaintiffs are not entitled to
claim any share in the same.
14.1 The learned counsel for the defendant would submit that when the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
10 of 23
A.S.No.211 of 2022 & Cross Objection No.96 of 2022
2nd plaintiff abstained from entering the witness box and failed to make a
statement on oath in support of her pleading, the trial court should have drawn
an adverse inference against her. Based only on the FIR (Ex.A.6), the trial court
concluded that the second plaintiff was born to the first plaintiff through the
defendant. Furthermore, the age of the 2nd plaintiff has not been established.
14.2 The learned counsel for the defendant would further submit that the
suit Item No.1 is self-acquired property, but the suit Item Nos. 2 and 3 are
individual/separate properties of the defendant. The trial court did not consider
this properly. Hence, the decree and judgment of the trial court call for
interference at the hands of this court.
15. Per contra, the learned counsel for the plaintiff would contend that the
Ex.A.3 partition deed would make it clear that the joint family of the defendant
had a sufficient nucleus and the suit item Nos. 1 and 2 were purchased only
from and out of the income generated from the joint family properties, and
therefore, the suit item Nos. 1 and 2 are also joint family properties. This aspect
of the matter was not considered by the trial court.
16. The learned counsel for the plaintiff would further contend that since
the 1st plaintiff’s only son died unmarried, the 1st plaintiff, being the only
Class-I legal heir of the deceased unmarried son, is entitled to his share. This
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
11 of 23
A.S.No.211 of 2022 & Cross Objection No.96 of 2022
was also not considered by the trial court and the trial court granted preliminary
decree only in respect of suit item No.3, that too, only in favour of the 2 nd
plaintiff. Hence, the cross objection.
17. In the light of the rival submissions, now, the points that arise for
consideration are:
(1) Whether the defendant has proved non-access to his wife, the 1st
plaintiff to deny paternity of the 2nd plaintiff-daughter?
(2) Whether suit Item Nos. 1 to 3 are joint family properties?
(3) Whether the trial court was right in granting maintenance to the
plaintiff at the rate of Rs.4,000/- per month?
Point No.1:
18. The marriage solemnized between the 1st plaintiff and the defendant
is not in dispute. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that marriage between
herself and the defendant was solemnized some 32 years back, and through the
above-said wedlock, a male child named Chandrasekar and a female child, the
2nd plaintiff were born. The said Chandrasekar died on 29.03.2015 by
committing suicide. The 2nd plaintiff is none other than the daughter of the
brother of the defendant's mother. In other words, the mother of the defendant is
none other than the maternal aunt of the 1st plaintiff. This was also not disputed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
12 of 23
A.S.No.211 of 2022 & Cross Objection No.96 of 2022
by the defendant.
19. The 1st plaintiff claims that the defendant is the biological father of
the 2nd plaintiff, whom she later gave birth to. She has needed money for her
maintenance since the defendant abandoned her. She is entitled to maintenance.
The plaintiffs further claim that since the suit properties are joint family
properties, they are jointly entitled to a two-third share in the suit properties.
20. On the other hand, the defendant denied the paternity of the 2nd
plaintiff. According to the defendant, when his son was about 1½ years old, the
1st plaintiff had deserted him, and ever since, she has been living separately. It
is the specific case of the defendant that the suit properties are his separate
properties. The 1st plaintiff, as P.W.1, in her evidence asserted that the 2nd
plaintiff was born to the defendant and herself. She has further stated that only
at the intervention of the defendant, the 2nd plaintiff was admitted in the
school. To substantiate her claim, she has produced the school transfer
certificate under Ex.A.7. A perusal of Ex.A.7 shows that the defendant's name
was shown as the father of the 2nd plaintiff.
21. P.W.2 has categorically stated that the 2nd plaintiff is the daughter of
the defendant, and she was born to the 1st plaintiff through the defendant. There
was no motive whatsoever attributed to this witness to suggest that he deposed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
13 of 23
A.S.No.211 of 2022 & Cross Objection No.96 of 2022
falsely against the defendant. P.W.3 has also categorically stated that the 2nd
plaintiff is the daughter of the 1st plaintiff born through the defendant. Nothing
was elicited from this witness to show that he deposed falsely against the
defendant. Though P.W.2 and P.W.3 were cross-examined at length, their
evidence remains unshattered.
22. D.W.2, though, stated that the 1st plaintiff and the defendant have
been living separately; in his chief examination, he never stated that the 2nd
plaintiff was not born to the 1st plaintiff through the defendant. D.W.1 in his
chief examination, though denied the parentage of the 2nd plaintiff, the
evidence of P.W. 1 to 3 has not been shattered.
23. It is relevant to note that the marriage between the 1st plaintiff and
the defendant was not dissolved by a decree of divorce under the Hindu
Marriage Act. Though it is the admitted case that the 1st plaintiff and the
defendant have been living separately due to some matrimonial disputes, the
marriage between them still subsists.
24. Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, reads as follows:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
14 of 23
A.S.No.211 of 2022 & Cross Objection No.96 of 2022
112. Birth during marriage, conclusive proof of
legitimacy - The fact that any person was born during the
continuance of a valid marriage between his mother and any
man, or within two hundred and eighty days after its
dissolution, the mother remaining unmarried, shall be
conclusive proof that he is the legitimate son of that man,
unless it can be shown that the parties to the marriage had
no access to each other at any time when he could have been
begotten.
25. Therefore, unless the person denying paternity demonstrates that he
had no access to his spouse at any point when the child could have been born,
every person born during the continuation of a valid marriage between his
mother and any man is the legitimate child of that man.
26. Admittedly, during the subsistence of the marriage between the 1st
plaintiff and the defendant, the 2nd plaintiff was born. P.Ws. 1 to 3 have
categorically spoken about the same. Though exact date on which the 2nd
plaintiff was born has not been established, the fact remains that the 2nd
plaintiff was born during the continuance of the marriage between the 1st
plaintiff and the defendant. The defendant neither established non-access to his
spouse (1st plaintiff) at any time when the 2nd plaintiff could have been
begotten.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
15 of 23
A.S.No.211 of 2022 & Cross Objection No.96 of 2022
27. Further, admittedly, the defendant is a close relative of the 1st
plaintiff and none other than her maternal aunt's son. Even though there may be
a marital discord, the 1st plaintiff has clearly spoken about the fact that she used
to visit his house due to the close relationship. Therefore, as long as non-access
had not been established, it has to be held that the 2nd plaintiff is the legitimate
daughter of the defendant. The trial court, upon considering the available oral
and documentary evidence held the defendant is the father of the 2nd plaintiff.
28. In the light of the above discussion, the point No.1 is answered in
favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant.
Point No.2:
29. As far as the suit Item Nos. 1 to 3 of the properties are concerned, the
plaintiffs pleaded that suit Item No. 1 of the property was though purchased in
the name of the defendant in the year 1993 under Ex.A.1 sale deed that property
was purchased from and out of the income generated from the joint family
properties.
30. It is relevant to note that if any member of the family raises a plea
that property purchased in the name of individual member was out of the joint
family nucleus, it is for him to prove that the family had a sufficient joint family
nucleus.
31. A careful perusal of Ex.A.1 sale deed dated 25.02.1993 shows that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
16 of 23
A.S.No.211 of 2022 & Cross Objection No.96 of 2022
the 1st item of the suit properties was purchased by the defendant. Ex.A.3-
partition deed when carefully perused, this court found that there was a partition
among the defendant, his father, brother, and sisters in respect of their joint
family properties on 29.05.2012. The recitals under Ex.A.3 partition deed
would go to show that the defendant was a member of the Hindu Joint Family
(HUF); however, the fact remains that the property possessed by the joint
family was small in extent. The suit 1st item of the property was purchased by
the defendant in his name for a total consideration of Rs.55,000/- in 1993. The
plaintiffs have not proved the nature of the income that was generated from the
so-called joint family properties which are subject matter of the partition deed
(Ex.A.3). Further, the joint family properties described under Ex.A.3-partition
deed are small extent of lands. Therefore, ordinary presumption that joint
family had sufficient income to purchase the suit item No.1 of the properties in
the year 1993 cannot be drawn, particularly, taking note of the small extent
properties partitioned under Ex.A.3.
32. Furthermore, when the defendant's father partitioned the joint family
property in 2012, he did not recognize the 1st item of the suit properties as joint
family property. The defendant ran a successful silver business and earned a
comfortable living. Had the defendant's father, the kartha of the Hindu Joint
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
17 of 23
A.S.No.211 of 2022 & Cross Objection No.96 of 2022
Family, considered the suit's first item of property to be joint family property,
he would have included it in Ex.A.3 partition deed. This fact further strengthens
the contention of the defendant that suit 1st item of the properties is his
individual property and not forming part of the joint family properties.
33. As a result, unless it is proved that there was sufficient income from
the joint family property and that the suit 1st item of the properties was
purchased from the income generated from the joint family property, it cannot
be concluded that the suit 1st item of the properties was not the defendant's
separate property and was purchased from and out of the income generated
from the joint family property.
34. Insofar as the suit 2nd item of the properties is concerned, a careful
perusal of Ex.A.2 settlement deed would make it clear that the same was gifted
to the defendant by his father. The recitals under the said settlement deed would
go to show that the same was purchased jointly by the defendant’s father along
with his other family members in 1949, and subsequently, by way of oral
partition, the said property was allotted to the defendant’s father, who in turn
settled it on the defendant under the Ex.A.2 settlement deed. Therefore, when
the property itself was purchased jointly by the father of the defendant along
with his brothers and was subsequently allotted to the father of the defendant,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
18 of 23
A.S.No.211 of 2022 & Cross Objection No.96 of 2022
that property had become the absolute property of the father of the defendant,
and the father of the defendant in turn settled it on the defendant. Therefore, it
cannot be held that the suit 2nd item of the properties is ancestral property. It is
not the case of the plaintiffs that the 2nd item of the suit properties has been
blended with the joint family properties.
35. As far as suit 3rd item of the properties is concerned, admittedly, this
is a joint family property, and the same was allotted to share of the defendant.
Therefore, the trial court held that the plaintiff is entitled to a one-half share in
the same; however, the fact remains that the 1st plaintiff’s only son, died
unmarried on 29.03.2015. This was not disputed by the defendant. In fact, the
First Information Report marked under Ex.A.7 would go to show that the first
information was recorded as to the suicidal death of the 1st plaintiff and
defendant’s son. The said first information as to the suicidal death of his son
was given only by the defendant wherein he himself admitted that the 2nd
plaintiff is his daughter.
36. Be that as it may, the death of the son of the 1st plaintiff and the
defendant is not in dispute. He died unmarried. On the date of death, he was a
coparcener along with the defendant and the 2nd plaintiff in respect of the suit
3rd item of properties. Therefore, on the date of his death, his share will
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
19 of 23
A.S.No.211 of 2022 & Cross Objection No.96 of 2022
automatically go to the 1st plaintiff-mother, being the only Class-I legal heir.
This aspect of the matter has not been considered by the trial court. Thus, this
court is of the view that the decree and judgement of the trial court in so far as
granting a preliminary decree for partition of one-half share in the suit 3rd item
of properties in favour of the 2nd plaintiff alone are liable to be set aside, and
instead, the suit 3rd item of the properties has to be divided into three equal
shares, and two such shares have to be allotted to plaintiffs 1 and 2 jointly, and
the rest of the one-third share has to be allotted to the defendant.
37. In light of the above discussions, it has to be held that the suit 1st and
2nd items of properties are not joint family properties of the defendant and the
plaintiffs and that they are individual properties of the defendant, and as far as
the suit's 3rd item of properties is concerned, it is joint family property of the
defendant, his deceased son, and daughter (2nd plaintiff), and on the death of
the son, the 1st plaintiff being the mother and the only Class-I legal heir, is
entitled to the share of her deceased unmarried son. Therefore, the judgment
and preliminary decree passed by the trial court by granting a half share in
favour of the 2nd plaintiff alone are set aside, and it has to be declared that the
plaintiffs 1 and 2 are entitled to a partition of a 2/3rd share jointly in the suit 3rd
item of properties. This point is answered accordingly.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
20 of 23
A.S.No.211 of 2022 & Cross Objection No.96 of 2022
Point No.3:
38. Insofar as maintenance of the 1st plaintiff is concerned, the defendant
has not established by any evidence that the 1st plaintiff has sufficient means to
maintain herself. The defendant is duty bound as a husband to maintain his
wife. The defendant has sufficient means. Therefore, this court is of the view
that the decree in respect of maintenance does not require any interference at
the hands of this court.
In the result, the appeal suit is dismissed and the cross-objection is
allowed in part. The judgement and preliminary decree dated 16.10.2019 passed
in O.S.No.173 of 2015 by the learned I Additional District Judge, Salem, for
partition of one-half share in the suit 3rd item of properties in favour the 2nd
plaintiff alone are set aside, and that preliminary decree is passed for partition
of the suit 3rd item of properties into three equal shares and for allotment of
two such shares to the plaintiffs 1 and 2 jointly. The judgement and decree for
maintenance at the rate of Rs.4,000/- per month to the 1st plaintiff stands
confirmed, however, the defendant shall pay such maintenance to the 1st
plaintiff until the final decree is passed and the shares of the plaintiffs are
allotted by metes and bounds. The judgement and decree insofar as the
dismissal of the suit in respect of the claim for partition in the suit item Nos. 1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
21 of 23
A.S.No.211 of 2022 & Cross Objection No.96 of 2022
and 2 stand confirmed.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are
directed to bear their respective costs incurred on this appeal suit.
Consequently, the connected CMP is closed.
Index : yes / no 20-02-2025
Neutral Citation : yes / no
kmk
To
1.The I Additional District Judge, Salem, Salem District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
22 of 23
A.S.No.211 of 2022 & Cross Objection No.96 of 2022
N.SATHISH KUMAR.J.,
kmk
and
20.. 02..2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
23 of 23
