Madras High Court
Karuppaiah vs Chinnan Chetti @ Annamalai on 17 March, 2025
Author: G.R.Swaminathan
Bench: G.R.Swaminathan
A.S.(MD)No.91 of 2016
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 17.03.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
A.S.(MD)No.91 of 2016
and
C.M.P.(MD)No.5892 of 2016
Karuppaiah ... Appellant
Vs.
1.Chinnan Chetti @ Annamalai
(R1 is suo motu declared as major and the
guardianship of his mother and next friend
Suriyakala @ Sathammai is discharged vide
order dated 26.02.2022 in A.S.(MD)No.91 of
2016 by GRSJ & MJRJ)
2.Inbavalli Achi
3.Chinnan Chetti @ Kailasam
4.Rajamanickam
5.Meenakshi,
Rep by by her Power Agent,
R.M.Karuppaiah.
6.Saraswathi (Died)
Rep by by her Power Agent,
R.M.Archunan.
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/03/2025 03:03:24 pm )
A.S.(MD)No.91 of 2016
7.Kalimuthu
8.Thiruvarasu
9.Arumugam
10.Archunan
11.Karuppiah Abimanu
12.Sellam
13.Sumathi
14.Muthuraman ... Respondents
(R10 to R14 are brought on record as LRs of the
deceased 6th respondent vide order dated
14.03.2024 made in C.M.P.(MD)Nos.16954,
16956 and 16957 of 2023 in A.S.(MD)No.91 of
2016 by VBSJ & KKRKJ)
Prayer : Appeal Suit filed under Section 96 of Civil Procedure Code, to
set aside the judgment and decree made in O.S.No.9 of 2011 dated
23.12.2015 on the file of the District Court, Sivagangai insofar as Item
Nos.1 to 7 of the suit schedule property are concerned.
For Appellant : Mr.A.R.M.Arunachalam
For Respondents : Mr.R.M.Arun Swaminathan for R1.
Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan for R10 to R12 & R14.
No appearance for R2 & R5.
2/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/03/2025 03:03:24 pm )
A.S.(MD)No.91 of 2016
JUDGMENT
Heard both sides.
2.This appeal arises out of a partition suit. O.S.No.9 of 2011 on
the file of the District Court, Sivagangai was instituted by minor Chinnan
Chetti @ Annamalai through his mother and next friend Suriyakala @
Sathammai. Suriyakala @ Sathammai got married to Karuppaiah, the
appellant herein in the year 2000. The marital relationship did not last
for long. They separated within ten months. The marriage was also
legally dissolved vide order dated 16.05.2008 in H.M.O.P.No.248 of
2008 on the file of the Family Court, Madurai. At the time of divorce, an
agreement was also entered between the parties on 10.04.2008.
Karuppaiah paid a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to Suriyakala @ Sathammai
towards full and final settlement of all claims. Clause 5 of the said
agreement further read as follows:-
“ek;kpy; 1tJ ghh;l;o 2tJ ghh;l;of;F> 2tJ
ghh;l;oapd; thH;ehs; IPtdhk;rk;> FHe;ij mz;zhkiyf;fhd
tsh;g;g[r;bryt[ kw;Wk; gog;g[r;bryt[ tifawh midj;ija[k;
fUj;jpy; bfhz;L U:.5>00>000/- (U:gha; Ie;J yl;rk;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/03/2025 03:03:24 pm )
kl;Lk;) bfhLg;gjhf uhrp ngrp ehsJ njjpapy; gQ;rhaj;jhh;
kw;Wk; cwtpdhh;fs; Kd;dpiyapy; ,uz;L ghh;ofSk;
kdg;g{h;tkhf rk;kjpj;Js;sdh;. ,jd;go ,e;j bjhif U:gha;
5 ,yl;rj;ij> 1) 2tJ ghh;loahfpa R{h;afyh 2)
N.nfhtpe;jd; brl;oahh 3) M.fz;zg;g brl;oahh; Mfpa
K:d;W egh;fspd; bgah;fspy; Tl;lhf epue;ju
itg;g[j;bjhifahf tq;fpapy; nghl;L itg;gJ. epue;ju
itg;g[j;bjhif gj;jpu vz;&028255 ehs;&25.04.08 tq;fpapd;
bgah;& INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK, KANDRAMANICKAM BRANCH
,e;j itg;g[j;bjhifg;gj;jpuk; ,U ghh;l;ofSf;Fk; ,ilahd
tHf;Ffs; Koa[k;tiu jpU.M.fz;zg;g brl;oahh; mth;fs;
trk; ,Ug;gJ.”
3.While so, O.S.No.9 of 2011 was filed claiming minor
Annamalai's 1/10th share in the suit schedule properties. Suriyakala
examined herself as P.W.1 and marked Exs.P1 and P3. Karuppaiah
examined himself as D.W.1. The defendants 2, 3, 7, 8 and 9 remained ex
parte. Exs.B1 to B7 were marked on the side of the defendants. After
considering the evidence on record, the trial Court passed preliminary
decree on 23.12.2015 granting 1/10th share for the plaintiff in suit
schedule items 1 to 7. Aggrieved by the same, this appeal has been filed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/03/2025 03:03:24 pm )
4.We are able to see that Karuppaiah, the appellant herein is
virtually impaired. The learned counsel for the appellant states that when
the suit was filed Karuppaiah had only having 75% vision and it had
been almost completely impaired as of now.
5.We therefore called upon the learned counsel for the plaintiff to
get instructions from his client as to whether he wants to press on with
the matter. We requested the plaintiff to consider if he can consider
enforcing the decree after the life time of the father / appellant herein.
6.The learned counsel for the plaintiff / first respondent took a
short pass over to get instructions. We are happy to record that the
plaintiff had agreed to abide by our suggestion. However, he still had
some demands. The learned counsel for the plaintiff namely, R.M.Arun
Swaminathan spoke to the appellant who is present in person before us.
All that the plaintiff wants are the following:-
(a) The suit item No.1 is an ancestral house. The plaintiff /
Annamalai should be permitted to visit the ancestral house (suit item
No.1) during functions / festivals.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/03/2025 03:03:24 pm )
(b) On the occasion of the plaintiff's marriage, the appellant should
sign in the relevant registers and also be present and discharge his role as
the father of the groom.
7.The appellant in our presence accepted both the requests made
by the plaintiff. Mrs.Muthu, wife of the appellant also agreed to the
aforesaid proposals putforth by the plaintiff through his counsel.
8.Since the appellant had accepted both the proposals, the plaintiff
has agreed not to file any final decree petition till the life time of the
appellant. After the life time of the appellant, the plaintiff will be entitled
to 1/10th share in suit item Nos.1 to 7. As and when, such a final decree
petition is filed, Muthu undertakes not to adopt any adversarial stance.
9.After the appellant passes away, Annamalai / plaintiff can very
well perform his final obsequies as a son and Mrs.Muthu will not raise
any objection.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/03/2025 03:03:24 pm )
10.In view of the consensus arrived at between the parties, it is
declared that the impugned preliminary decree will not be put to
enforcement during the life time of the appellant.
11.The appeal suit is disposed of accordingly. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
(G.R.S. J.,) & (M.J.R. J.,)
17.03.2025
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
ias
To:
The District Court,
Sivagangai.
Copy to:
The Section Officer,
ER/VR Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/03/2025 03:03:24 pm )
G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.
and
M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.
ias
17.03.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/03/2025 03:03:24 pm )
