Madras High Court
Minor Kaveena vs Sengoda Gounder on 25 March, 2025
Author: N. Sathish Kumar
Bench: N. Sathish Kumar
A.S.No.796 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated 25.03.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR
A.S.No.796 of 2023
and CMP.Nos.28034 of 2023 and 7682 of 2025
Minor Kaveena
D/o.Senthil Kumar
Rep by her mother/next friend
Ilavarasi ... Appellant
Versus
1.Sengoda Gounder
2.Senthilkumar
3.Balasubramaniam
4.Aravinth
5.Minor Harshini Priya ... Respondents
Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 96 read with Order 47 Rule 1 of Code of Civil
Procedure, to set aside the judgment and decree dated 22.08.2023 made in
O.S.No.55 of 2014 on the file of I Additional District Court, Namakkal.
For Appellant : Mr.N.Manoharan
For Respondents : Mr.A.Rajakumar
Page 1 / 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 07:25:09 pm )
A.S.No.796 of 2023
JUDGMENT
Challenge has been made to the decree and judgment of the Trial Court
dismissing the suit filed by the minor through her mother.
2. The suit has been filed by the minor through her mother pleading that the
entire property is ancestral property held by one Sengoda Gounder/first defendant.
The second defendant is the son and the defendants 3 to 5 are the legal heirs of
one Kalaichelvi, the daughter of the first defendant. The marriage between the
plaintiff's mother Ilavarasi and the second defendant was dissolved by way of
decree of divorce dated 30.10.2019 passed in HMOP.No.48 of 2019 on the file of
Principal District Court, Namakkal. Hence, the plaint proceeded that since the
property is an ancestral property, the plaintiff is entitled to share of 1/6th share in
the suit properties.
2. The first defendant took a stand that item No.1 and 2 is the absolute self
acquired properties and S.No.667/3 belongs to defendants 1, 2, Rajeswari alias
Paapathi and Murugesan. In respect of S.Nos.670/5 and 668/2, the property is
bequeathed in favour of the second defendant. Since those properties are self
acquired properties. The second defendant also took a stand that S.Nos.670/5 and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 07:25:09 pm )
668/2 are the self acquired property bequeathed through will. Hence, opposed the
suit.
3. Based on the above pleadings, the Trial Court framed the following
issues:
a. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to preliminary decree and separate possession of
1/6th share from the suit property?
b. Whether the plaintiff's claim that suit properties are joint family properties
purchased out of joint family nucleus and the properties of the defendants 1 and 2
should be considered as ancestral properties is true ?
c. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?
d. To what other reliefs?
4. On the side of the plaintiff, plaintiff's mother was examined as PW1 and
marked Exs.A1 to A6. On the side of the defendants, no oral evidence adduced,
however, Ex.B1 marked.
5. Though the defendants were set exparte, the Trial Court dismissed the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 07:25:09 pm )
suit mainly on the ground that as far as S.Nos.S.Nos.670/5 and 668/2 bequeathed
to the second defendant by way of will has been admitted by the plaintiff's mother.
With regard to other items, except the revenue records, no other documents have
been filed. Challenging the said decree and judgment, the present appeal has been
filed.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that even assuming that
there was a will in respect of S.Nos.670/5 and 668/2 in favour of the second
defendant, in respect of the other items, the plaintiff is certainly entitled to her
share. The plaintiff is also ready to confine her right only in respect of other items
of the property other than S.Nos.670/5 and 668/2. Hence, prayed for her share in
the suit property
7. Whereas, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the Trial
Court has rightly dismissed the suit and the same does not require interference
from the hands of this Court. Hence, seeks for dismissal of the appeal.
8. In the light of the above submissions, now, the following issue arises in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 07:25:09 pm )
this appeal
(i) Whether the minor plaintiff is entitled to share in the suit properties?
Issue No.(i)
9. Though a stand taken by the defendants that the properties are the
absolute properties of the first defendant, no materials whatsoever has been placed
before the Court. In fact, they remained exparte after cross examination of PW1,
only for the first time, that too, in the appeal stage, xerox copy of the document is
sought to be filed as an additional evidence, however, there was no reasons
whatsoever assigned for non production of original document. Therefore, as a
matter of right in the absence of reasons for non accounting the original document,
xerox copy of the document cannot be relied. That apart even the document placed
before this Court indicate that some properties were purchased in the name of the
second defendant when he was 11 years old. This itself clearly indicates that the
properties have been purchased only from the income through the joint family
properties since he had no income at the relevant point of time. Such view of the
matter, petition in CMP.No.7682 of 2025 filed for receiving the additional
documents along with xerox copy is rejected. Similarly, the will has not been
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 07:25:09 pm )
proved in the manner known to law. Though the will has not been exhibited before
the Trial Court, the learned counsel for the appellant fairly submitted that since
PW1 herself had admitted about the existence of will, the plaintiff is not claiming
her share in respect of the S.Nos.670/5 and 668/2.
10. Such view of the matter, the Trial Court non-suiting the plaintiff merely
on the ground that only the revenue records is produced is nothing but clear non
application of mind. As far as the ancestral properties are concerned, normally,
revenue records will alone be available. Hence, when the defendants are not in a
position to establish their stand that the suit properties are self acquired properties,
it has to be held that the suit properties are ancestral one except S.Nos.670/5 and
668/2. Hence, the plaintiff is certainly entitled to 1/6th share in item Nos.1 to 4, 7
and 8. Accordingly, these points are answered.
11. In the result, appeal is allowed in part and the suit is dismissed. The
judgment and decree of the Trial Court passed in O.S.No.55 of 2014 is set aside
and the preliminary decree is passed granting 1/6th share in respect of item Nos.1
to 4, 7 and 8. Since, the only apprehension of the learned counsel for the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 07:25:09 pm )
respondents that the minor's share shall not be dealt by the mother of the minor
determinant to her interest. It is needless to state that the Guardian while dealing
with the property of the minor has to necessarily obtain permission from the
concerned Court. To this, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that till
the minor attains majority, the property will not be dealt with by the mother of the
plaintiff. Such statement is also recorded.
No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition stands closed.
25.03.2025
Index : Yes / No
Speaking/non speaking order
dhk
To,
1. The I Additional District Judge,
I Additional District Court
Namakkal
2.The Section Officer
VR Section, Madras High Court
N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 07:25:09 pm )
dhk
25.03.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 07:25:09 pm )
