Madras High Court
V.Rajendran vs Aravindan on 7 March, 2025
Author: N. Sathish Kumar
Bench: N.Sathish Kumar
A.S.No.447 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 07.03.2025
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
A.S.No.447 of 2022 &
C.M.P.Nos.13910 & 13912 of 2023
1. V.Rajendran
2. V.Srinivasan
3. V.Viswanathan
4. S.Mangaiyarkarasi
5. V.Ramalingam ... Appellants
-vs-
1. Aravindan
2. Arivoli
3. Suthanthira Aravindama ... Respondents
PRAYER: This Appeal Suit has been filed under section 96 of Code of Civil
Procedure to set aside the judgment and decree dated 21.07.2022 made in
O.S.No.170 of 2018 on the file of the II Additional District Court, Chidambaram.
For Appellants : Mr.N.Kumar
For Respondent : Mr.K.Chandrasekaran
*****
ORDER
This matter is posted today under the caption “For Being Mentioned” at
the instance of the learned counsel for the respondents.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/03/2025 08:34:51 pm )
2. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the following
inadvertent errors have been crept in the order dated 17.02.2025 that need to be
rectified:
i) The Trial Court in fact granted half share in respect of the remaining 57
cents, which is not disputed by other side and the same has to be confirmed,
whereas in the appellate judgment, especially in Paragraph No.12 of the judgment, it
has been that the suit has been dismissed in respect of 6th item of the property;
ii) Similarly, in the very same paragraph, there was no dispute with regard
to the grant of partition to one Chandra, but it has been typed otherwise;
iii) In the cause title, the name of the 2nd respondent has been wrongly
typed as Arivoli instead of Aurovil.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants has not disputed the mistakes
occurred in the judgment on the above aspects.
4. In view of the above, Registry is directed to carry out the following
amendments in the judgment dated 17.02.2025:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/03/2025 08:34:51 pm )
a) To substitute the first three lines of Paragraph No.12, namely, “12. It is
also admitted fact that the property bequeathed to Chandra was also not included in
the suit property and partition is also not sought in respect of the above property.”
with the following sentences/lines:
“12. It is also admitted fact that the property bequeathed to
Chandra was included and partition was sought in respect of the
concerned properties. Since Chandra died issue-less, the Trial Court
also granted partition.”
b) To substitute the last but three lines of the very same Paragraph No.12,
namely, “.... hence, the suit has been dismissed .... ” with the following sentences:
“... hence, the suit is confirmed ...”
c) To type the correct name of the 2nd respondent as 'Aurovil' in the place
of Arivoli in the cause title.
4. Registry is further directed to issue a fresh copy of the judgment to the
parties forthwith. Except above, in all other respects, the judgment dated 17.02.2025
remains unaltered.
07.03.2025
ar
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/03/2025 08:34:51 pm )
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Date :17.02.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR
A.S.No.447 of 2022 &
CMP.Nos.13910 & 13912 of 2023
1. V.Rajendran
2. V.Srinivasan
3. V.Viswanathan
4. S.Mangaiyarkarasi
5. V.Ramalingam ...
Appellants
Versus
1. Aravindan
2. Arivoli
3. Suthanthira Aravindama ...
Respondents
PRAYER : This Appeal Suit has been filed under section 96 of Code of Civil
Procedure to set aside the judgment and decree dated 21.07.2022 made in
O.S.No.170 of 2018 on the file of the II Additional District Court, Chidambaram.
For Appellants : Mr.N.Kumar
For Respondent : Mr.K.Chandrasekaran
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/03/2025 08:34:51 pm )
JUDGMENT
Challenging the decree and judgment of trial Court granting preliminary
decree in respect of half hare of Item Nos.1, 5, 7 of the suit schedule properties and
half share in Item Nos.4, 6 of the suit schedule property and dismissing the suit in
respect of other items, the present appeal has been filed.
2. The parties are arrayed as per their own ranking before the trial Court.
3. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the property originally owned by
their grand father Ramalinga Chettiar. The said Ramalinga Chettiar and his wife
Soundara Nayagi had four daughters, viz., Saradavalli, Parvathi, Tiripurasundari
and Chandra and among the daughters, Saradavalli and Chandra had died. The
plaintiffs are sons and daughter of Tripurasundari and the defendants are sons and
daughter of Parvathi. The grandfather of the parties executed a Will when he was
in a sound disposing state of mind and under the Will 'A' schedule property
bequeathed to Saradavalli, 'B' schedule has been bequeathed to Parvathi Ammal, 'C'
schedule property has been bequeathed to Thiripurasundari and 'D' schedule
property has been bequeathed to Chandra. The said Ramalinga Chettiar bequeathed
'E' schedule property to one Rajendran and 'F' schedule property to one Aravindan.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/03/2025 08:34:51 pm )
As far as 'E' schedule and 'F' schedule properties are concerned, Rajendran and
Aravindan would take the property absolutely. As far as the properties bequeathed
to the daughters, life interest was given to them and infact, it is stated in the Will
that if any of the daughter has no issue, the children of other daughters will take the
property absolutely. Saradavalli and Chandra died issue less and therefore the
properties bequeathed to them under the Will devolved upon the plaintiffs and the
defendants, who are sons and daughters of Thiripurasundari and Parvathi. Hence,
the plaintiffs sought half share in the property.
4. In the written statement filed by the first defendant, which has been
adopted by the defendants 2 to 4, admitting the relationship and also execution of
the Will dated 22.05.1972 by their grandfather, it is their case that Ramalinga
Chettiar during his life time has executed more than 3 settlement deeds regarding
the properties mentioned under the Will and his wife Soundaranayaki also executed
settlement deeds in favour of her daughters. Based on the settlement deeds, the
daughters of Saradavalli and Chandra have sold some of the properties to various
persons before 1990 and most of the properties mentioned in the plaint have already
been sold by them. Hence, disputed the shares.
5. Based on the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed :
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/03/2025 08:34:51 pm )
1. Whether the suit properties are ancestral joint family
properties of the plaintiffs and the defendants?
2. Is it true that on the basis of the settlement deeds some
of the suit properties have been sold prior to 1990?
3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief sought as
per Order XX Rule 12 of Code of Civil Procedure?
4. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to partition as prayed
for?
5. To what relief the plaintiffs are entitled to?
6. On the side of the plaintiffs, the second plaintiff has been examined as
P.W.1 and Ex.A.1 to A5 have been marked. On the side of the defendants, the first
defendant has been examined as D.W.1 and Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.13 have been marked on
their side. The trial Court taking note of the fact that Will has been admitted by
both sides, in view of the fact that properties have been dealt by the testator during
his life time and also taking note of the nature of the properties dealt by the parties,
viz., testator, his wife and daughters, granted partition in respect of the remaining
properties. Challenging the same, the unsuccessful defendants have filed the
present appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/03/2025 08:34:51 pm )
7. The main contention of the appellants is that the Will has been
admitted and since the Will has not been acted upon, the testator himself settled the
property, by way of Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.5. That apart, the properties in respect of
Ex.B.5, Ex.B.7 and Ex.B.8 have been sold to third parties. Therefore, without
impleading necessary parties, the suit has been filed. According to them, though
Will is admitted, as the testator himself has dealt with the properties, the Will
cannot be acted upon.
8. Whereas the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the
respondents is that the suit itself has been filed for partition excluding the properties
which has already been dealt with under Ex.B.5, Ex.B.7 and Ex.B.8. In respect of
Item No.6, the trial Court considering that the property had already been sold,
granted partition only in respect of remaining properties as per the Will. Hence, the
same does not require any interference.
9. In the light of the above submissions, the following points are raised
for consideration :
1. Whether the suit is bad for non joinder of purchasers?
2. Whether the Will is not valid merely because some of the
properties are dealt by the testator?
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/03/2025 08:34:51 pm )
3. To what relief the parties are entitled?
10. The relationship between the parties has not been disputed. It is also
not in dispute that Ramalinga Chettiar had four daughters, viz., Saradavalli,
Parvathi, Tiripurasundari and Chandra. The property held by Ramalinga Chettiar is
also not disputed by them. It is also not in dispute that the said Ramalinga Chettiar
has executed a Will dated 22.05.1972 in favour of his daughters reserving life
interest to them. In the Will it is clearly indicated that the property of the daughter,
who died without any issues, would go to the legal heirs of other daughters. These
aspects are also not disputed by the parties. The settlement deeds Ex.B.1, Ex.B.2
and Ex.B.4, executed by the said Ramalinga Chettiar, when carefully perused it is
seen that settlement deed Ex.B.1 has been executed in favour of the first plaintiff,
Ex.B.2 has been executed in favour to the Tripurasundari one of his daughter and
Ex.B.3 in favour of his daughter Parvathi and Ex.B.4 settlement deed has been
executed in favour of first defendant. In all these documents, settlement deeds were
executed in respect of 1.84 cents in Item No.5 of the plaint. The plaintiff has filed
the suit in respect of remaining properties alone. Ex.B.5 sale deed executed by
Ramalinga Chettial in respect of the property in survey No.49/14A is no way
connected with the suit properties. Ex.B.6 is the Will executed by Soundara
Nayagi, the wife of Ramalinga Chettiar, in favour of her daughters Saradavalli and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/03/2025 08:34:51 pm )
Chandra. It is relevant to note that Ex.B.6 will not convey any title to any of the
parties, since she was given only life interest alone. Therefore, Ex.B.6 Will not
convey any benefit to any of the legatees.
11. As per Sale Deed Ex.B.5, Soundara Nayagi and and Chandra have
dealt to an extent of 1.33 acres in survey No.29/4A1 and also part of 49/14A to an
extent of 3 ½ cents. It is to be noted that this property is also included in the plaint.
Similarly, the property dealt under Ex.B.7 has also been included in the plaint.
Ex.B.9 and Ex.B.10 settlement deeds executed by Soundaranayagi to her daughter
Chandra. It is relevant to note that these documents also will not convey any title to
the properties, since the mother had no right over the same. Since she had only life
interest.
12. It is also an admitted fact that the property bequeathed to Chandra
was also not included in the suit property and partition is also not sought in respect
of the above property. The execution of the Will has been admitted by both the
parties. It is relevant to note that some of the properties have been dealt by the
parties and some of the properties have been sold in favour of third parties and those
property have been excluded by the trial Court. Therefore, the trial Court has
excluded the above properties and granted preliminary decree only respect of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/03/2025 08:34:51 pm )
remaining properties. Therefore, non inclusion of those purchasers will no way
affect the rights of the parties in the present suit. Hence, the trial Court considering
entire documents, had excluded the properties which have been already dealt with
and granted preliminary decree in respect of Item Nos.1, 5, 7. As far as the 6 th item
of the property is concerned, the same has already been settled by the said
Ramalinga Chettiar in favour of Tirupurasundari and hence, the suit has been
dismissed in respect of 6th item of the property. Hence, I do not find any merits in
this appeal. The points are answered accordingly.
13. In the result, this Appeal Suit is dismissed. As far as mesne profits
are concerned, the same has to be worked out in a separate proceedings.
17.02.2025
Index : Yes / No
Internet: Yes
Speaking/non speaking order
vrc
To,
The IV Additional District Judge,
Chidambaram.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/03/2025 08:34:51 pm )
N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.
vrc
17.02.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/03/2025 08:34:51 pm )
