Madras High Court
Subbammal vs Kangai Ammal on 3 March, 2025
Author: G.R.Swaminathan
Bench: G.R.Swaminathan
A.S.(MD)No.189 of 2016
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 03.03.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
A.S.(MD)No.189 of 2016
and
C.M.P.(MD)No.11810 of 2016
1.Subbammal
2.Narambulingam @ Durai
3.Balasubramaniam
4.Palani @ Dandayuthapani
5.Veerabagu @ Durai
6.Valli
7.Chitra
8.Mariammal
9.Ramalakshmi
10.Subramanian ... Appellants /
Defendants 1 to 9 & 11
Vs.
1.Kangai Ammal
2.Ravichandran
3.Muthukumar
4.Sekar ... Respondents /
Plaintiffs
(Cause title accepted vide order of this Court dated 18.09.2014 in
M.P(MD)No.1 of 2014)
1/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2025 06:50:22 pm )
A.S.(MD)No.189 of 2016
Prayer : Appeal Suit filed under Section 96 of Civil Procedure Code
against the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.58 of 2006 dated
29.12.2009 on the file of I Additional District Judge, Tirunelveli.
For Appellants : Mr.M.Ponniah
For Respondents : Mr.M.P.Senthil
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by G.R.Swaminathan J.)
Heard both sides.
2.This appeal arises out of a partition suit. It is not in dispute that
the suit properties originally belonged to one Narambulinga Thevar. He
had as many as 3 wives. It appears that the first wife and second wife of
Narambulinga Thevar predeceased the third wife (Periyachi Ammal).
Periyachi Ammal filed O.S.No.26 of 1953 before the Sub Court,
Tirunelveli. In the said suit, the plaintiffs were Periyachi Ammal and her
minor children. The first defendant was the son born through the first
wife. The 2 sons born through the second wife was shown as Defendants
2 and 3. All the three defendants, who were minors when the suit was
instituted were represented by their guardian (their maternal uncle). The
case ended in compromise on 29.07.1953.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2025 06:50:22 pm )
3.By virtue of the said compromise decree, the present suit
schedule properties were jointly allotted in favour of the Rama Moorthy
and Arumuga Nainar.
4.Seeking partition of their share, the legal heirs of Rama Moorthy
filed O.S.No.58 of 2006 against the legal heirs of Arumuga Nainar.
5.The Court below passed preliminary decree as sought for on
29.12.2009, Challenging the same, this first appeal came to be filed.
6.The learned counsel appearing for the appellants drew our
attention to Clause 22 of the earlier compromise decree in which it is
stated that if the parties desire separate possession, they can file
execution petition. The contention of the learned counsel for the
appellants is that the present suit is not maintainable and that the present
plaintiffs ought to have filed only execution petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2025 06:50:22 pm )
7.We are not impressed with his argument. Admittedly, Rama
Moorthy and Arumuga Nainar were given joint allotment. Legal heirs of
Rama Moorthy now seek partition. Therefore, they are rightly instituted
the present suit. The maintainability of the present suit cannot be
determined in the light of some Clause in the earlier compromise decree.
We do not find any error committed by the Court below. There is no
merit in this appeal.
8.This Appeal Suit stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
(G.R.S. J.,) & (M.J.R. J.,)
03.03.2025
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
MGA
To:
1.I Additional District Judge,
Tirunelveli.
2.The Sub Court, Tirunelveli.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2025 06:50:22 pm )
G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.
and
M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.
MGA
03.03.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2025 06:50:22 pm )
