Sunday, 10, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

T.P.Abdul Rahiman vs /
2025 Latest Caselaw 910 Mad

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 910 Mad
Judgement Date : 14 July, 2025

Madras High Court

T.P.Abdul Rahiman vs / on 14 July, 2025

Author: G.Jayachandran
Bench: G.Jayachandran
                                                                                        A.S.No.358 of 2022

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                    Dated: 14.07.2025

                                                             Coram:

                                  THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN

                                             Appeal Suit No.358 of 2022
                                             & C.M.P.No.13340 of 2022

                T.P.Abdul Rahiman,
                S/o.Mariyumma,
                ‘Soubagya Fancy Light',
                Chokli, P.O. Chokli,
                Mahe.                                              ... 2nd Defendant/Appellant
                                                            /versus/
                1. Thayat Pudukudi Subaida,
                W/o.C.M.A. Basheer,
                at Duabi through Power of Attorney Holder,
                K.Balakrishnan,
                S/o. Kunhikrishnan Nair,
                At Keexhanthoor House,
                Chalakkara, P.O., New Mahe.

                2. T.P.K.Yousuf,
                S/o Mariyumma,
                at 'Safa', P.O.Palloor, Mahe

                3. T.P.Mustafa
                S/o Mariyumma,
                At Milan, Near Govt.Hospital,
                Palloor, Mahe.




                ___________
                Page No.1/7




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis              ( Uploaded on: 17/07/2025 08:44:03 pm )
                                                                                           A.S.No.358 of 2022


                4. T.P.Shanavaz @ Moidu
                S/o Mariyumma,
                No.26/11, Egyptian Block,
                2nd Floor, Ha Road, Bangalore-51,
                Karnataka.                                             ...Respondents1, 3 & 4/
                                                                          Defendants 1, 3 & 4/Respondents

                          Appeal Suit has been filed under Section 96 read with Order 41 Rule 1 of
                the Civil Procedure Code, pleased to set aside the judgment and decree dated
                29.04.2022 made in I.A.No.136 of 2019 in O.S.No.48 of 2015 on the file of the
                Learned Subordinate Judge, Mahe and allow the above appeal.


                                      For Appellant   : Mr.Jeremiah Crecory John
                                      For Respondents : Mr.V.Manohar,
                                                        for Mr.A.C.Susheel Kumar, for R1
                                                      : No appearance, for R2 & R3
                                                      : Not press, for R4


                                                        JUDGMENT

The appeal is filed by the 2nd defendant in the partition suit

challenging the final decree passed, insofar as item No.1 of the suit schedule

property, wherein the value of the property has been ascertained at Rs.22,00,200/-

and 2/18 share has been allotted to the appellant herein.

___________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/07/2025 08:44:03 pm )

2. The appeal is based on the short point that the market value of the

item No.1 property is more than Rs.1.25 crores and even the plaintiff himself has

admitted in collateral proceedings that the property is worth more than

Rs.1,10,00,000/-. Therefore, the fixation of Rs.22,00,200/- as the value of the

entire item No.1 property is abysmally low.

3. The Learned Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent submitted

that untested statement of any party cannot be a basis for fixation of value. In the

present case, the value of Rs.22,00,200/- been fixed by the Court below based on

the Commissioner's report. In fact, the value fixed by the trial Court is solely

based on the Commissioner report.

4. This Court, on perusing the preliminary decree and the final decree

proceedings, finds that the appellant herein is entitled to 2/18 share in Item No.1

property. Since the property is indivisible, the value been fixed at the rate of

Rs.22,00,200/- by the Court below in the final decree proceedings, based on the

Commissioner's report. The property consists of land and a dwelling house. It

was previously occupied by the appellant herein. Pursuant to the preliminary

___________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/07/2025 08:44:03 pm )

decree and final decree, the appellant has vacated the premises and handed over to

the plaintiff. While valuing the property for the purpose of division, the Court

below had fixed the value of Item No.1 of the property at the rate of 1818 sq.m

and valued the building been assessed to Rs.12,00,200/-. Accordingly, for the

total value of Rs.22,00,200/-, a sum of Rs.2,44,467/- been given to the appellant

after equalisation of the shares.

5. As stated earlier, it is the contention of the appellant that the value

of the property to be fixed at Rs.1,25,00,000/- instead of Rs.22,00,200/-. However,

this contention is without any basis, except for a stray statement made by the

plaintiff in a collateral proceedings. It is also pertinent to note that there are other

properties in the same vicinity with different survey numbers, which are also the

subject matter of the partition.

6. This Court finds that, for those properties, the Court below had

fixed different value by citing reasons particularly, they are vacant lands located

but interior, away from the road.

___________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/07/2025 08:44:03 pm )

7. This Court, on perusing the values assigned to each of those

properties and the mode of equalisation, including the owelty paid to the parties, is

of the view that the plaintiff, who had been given 14/18 share in item No.1

property, is now allowed to take possession of the said property from the appellant

herein. It is reported that the possession already been delivered. Therefore, the

owelty paid to the appellant in respect of item No.1 property, which was in his

possession, must be reasonable and justifiable, taking note of the fact that it was

under his enjoyment till passing of the preliminary decree.

8. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that the owelty paid to the

appellant should be enhanced at Rs.1,22,233/-, which will be 50% of the value

fixed on the property. This additional owelty will be awarded for handing over

possession of the property to the plaintiff. It is also brought to the notice of this

Court that, at the time of admitting the appeal, an interim order of creating a

charge over item No.1 property was ordered in C.M.P.No.13340 of 2022 dated

28.11.2022.

___________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/07/2025 08:44:03 pm )

9. In view of the disposal of the appeal with the direction that the 1st

respondent should pay a sum of Rs.1,22,233/- to the appellant, on payment of said

amount, the charge over item No.1 property shall stand removed. A period of two

months is granted for payment of Rs.1,22,233/-.

10. In fine, the Appeal Suit is disposed of. There shall be no order as

to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.




                                                                                                14.07.2025

                Index                   :Yes/No.
                Neutral citation        :Yes/No.
                bsm

                To,
                1. The Learned Subordinate Judge, Mahe.

2.The Section Officer, V.R.Section, High Court, Madras.

___________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/07/2025 08:44:03 pm )

Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN,J.

bsm

14.07.2025

___________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/07/2025 08:44:03 pm )

 
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