Madras High Court
Boovaragan (Major) vs Veeramuthu on 14 November, 2025
A.S. No. 85 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 15.10.2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 14.11.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE A.D.MARIA CLETE
A.S. No. 85 of 2018
1.Boovaragan (major)
2. Muthukumaran (major) ... Appellants
Minors 1 & 2 are represented by
their mother and guardian Mahalakshmi
A1 & A2 are declared as Major and discharge
the guardianship (mother of the A1 & A2) of
the appellants vide Court order dated 11.06.2025
made in CMP.No.7801 of 2025 & 7802 of 2025
in A.S.No.85 of 2018.
Vs.
1. Veeramuthu
2. Rajendiran
...Respondents
PRAYER : Appeal Suit filed under Section 96 of Civil Procedure Code to set
aside the judgment and decree dated 30.01.2015 in O.S.No.203 of 2010 on the
file of Principal District Court, Cuddalore.
1/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/11/2025 05:03:46 pm )
A.S. No. 85 of 2018
For Appellants : Mr.P.Mani
For Respondents : No appearance for R1
Mr.Ashok Kumar
for Mr.D.Baskar for R2
JUDGMENT
Heard.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated
30.01.2015 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Cuddalore, in O.S.
No. 203 of 2010.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to in the
same rank as they stood in the Trial Court.
4. The plaintiffs’ case, in brief, is that the suit property, along with
other ancestral properties, originally belonged to one Venkatachala Padayachi,
who had four sons - (1) Muthaiyan, (2) Iyyanperumal, (3) Ezhumalai, and (4)
Rajamanickam, among whom an oral partition of their father’s properties was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/11/2025 05:03:46 pm )
effected.
5. Iyyanperumal, the second son, had three sons - (1) Kuppusamy, (2)
Veeramuthu, and (3) Rajendran. The plaintiffs are the minor (since major)
sons of Veeramuthu, the first defendant and the second defendant is the
brother of the first defendant.
6. During his lifetime, Iyyanperumal executed a registered partition deed
dated 10.11.1998, partitioning the ancestral properties among his three sons
and allotting the C Schedule suit properties to the first defendant. Thereafter,
at the instance of the first defendant, Iyyanperumal executed two settlement
deeds dated 01.09.2004 and 01.12.2005 in favour of the first defendant, in
respect of the same C Schedule properties.
7. The plaintiffs claim entitlement to a two-thirds share in the suit
properties, leaving one-third to their father (the first defendant). They allege
that their father was addicted to alcohol and illicit relationships and had
incurred heavy debts; when they sought partition in October 2010, he refused.
They further allege that, to satisfy his debts, he executed a sale deed dated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/11/2025 05:03:46 pm )
10.10.2005 in favour of his brother (the second defendant), conveying a
portion of item 2 measuring 0.70 cents out of 1 acre 44 cents in S.No.353/4.
The plaintiffs contend the sale was neither for family benefit nor necessity,
and, being minors at the time, they seek (i) partition of their 2/3 share and (ii) a
declaration that the said sale deed is null and void.
8. The first defendant, in his written statement, admits the relationship
and ancestral lineage. He avers that Venkatachala Padayachi executed a
partition deed dated 11.09.1952 dividing his properties among his four sons;
thereafter, Rajamanickam, the brother of Iyyanperumal, sold his share to
Iyyanperumal on 13.08.1964.
9. Subsequently, Iyyanperumal effected a partition among his three sons
by a registered deed dated 10.11.1998, allotting the suit properties to the first
defendant. Despite the partition, the properties continued to be enjoyed jointly,
whereupon Iyyamperumal executed a settlement deed dated 01.09.2004 in
favour of the first defendant.
10. The 1st defendant further states that he went abroad in search of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/11/2025 05:03:46 pm )
employment, returned jobless, and underwent kidney surgery; owing to
financial hardship he borrowed loans. When pressed by creditors, he borrowed
Rs. 45,000/- from the second defendant, who agreed to lend only on the
security of a portion of the suit property; accordingly, by sale deed dated
10.10.2005, 0.70 cents was conveyed. On the same day, the second defendant
agreed to reconvey the property if Rs. 2,22,000/- was repaid within two years,
for which a receipt was executed. When the first defendant later expressed
readiness to repurchase, the second defendant evaded; a legal notice dated
06.03.2009 was issued by the first defendant which was replied to on
09.03.2009. Thereafter, the first defendant lodged a criminal complaint and
objected to mutation of patta. He claims readiness to repay Rs. 2,22,000/- to
the second defendant for reconveyance and is agreeable to partition with the
plaintiffs.
11. The second defendant, in his written statement, accepts the
relationship and derivation of title; contends that the partition deed dated
05.04.1956 was unregistered; states that Iyyanperumal executed a partition
deed on 10.11.1998 with his three sons under which the C Schedule properties
were allotted to the first defendant; that, at the first defendant’s instance, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/11/2025 05:03:46 pm )
10.11.1998 deed was revoked by a revocation deed dated 31.08.2004; and
that, thereafter, Iyyanperumal executed a settlement deed dated 01.09.2004 in
favour of his three sons, again allotting the same C Schedule properties to the
first defendant. He further avers that the first defendant, being indebted, sold
0.70 cents from Item 2 for valid consideration of Rs. 1,38,250/-, denies that
the sale was nominal or for Rs. 45,000/-, and alleges that the present suit is
collusive between the plaintiffs and the first defendant.
12. The trial court decreed the suit in part, granting suit prayers (i), (ii),
(iii), and (v), i.e., for partition, permanent injunction and costs, but rejected
the prayer for a declaration that the sale deed dated 10.10.2005 is null and
void. The plaintiffs have preferred this appeal limited to the denial of
declaration. The defendants have not filed any cross-appeal or independent
appeal challenging the other findings.
13. Point for Determination in this appeal is whether the sale deed
dated 10.10.2005 executed by the first defendant in favour of the second
defendant in respect of 0.70 cents in Item 2 of the suit property is void?
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/11/2025 05:03:46 pm )
14. There is no controversy inter se the parties regarding the
relationship among the parties or the ancestral character of the properties; the
properties are ancestral Hindu joint family properties in which the plaintiffs
have a right by birth.
15. The second defendant’s contention that the properties became the
first defendant’s self-acquisitions by virtue of the settlement deed is untenable.
A settlement executed by the father, Iyyamperumal, in favour of his sons does
not, by itself, efface the ancestral character of the properties. The label or
nomenclature of the instrument is not determinative of its legal effect; a Hindu
joint family karta cannot, by styling a document as a “settlement,” unilaterally
divest coparceners of their rights.
16. Accordingly, it is confirmed that the suit properties are ancestral,
with the plaintiffs together holding a 2/3 share and the first defendant to the
remaining 1/3 share.
17. The plaintiffs alleged that the first defendant sold the property to
fund a wayward lifestyle, but no evidence supports that claim. On the contrary,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/11/2025 05:03:46 pm )
the first defendant admits he was indebted on account of foreign travel and
medical expenses. Under Mitakshara Hindu law, a karta’s power to alienate
joint family property is confined to cases of legal necessity, benefit of the
estate, or the discharge of indispensable duties; the burden of proof lies on the
purchaser to establish that the alienation was for such necessity.
18. The trial court held that the sale deed executed by the first defendant
in favour of the second defendant was bona fide and for valid consideration,
and as such he is entitled for a portion of the item of property i.e., 70 cents on
equity.
19. The sale deed executed by the first defendant cannot be held void; it
is voidable at the instance of the coparceners only to the extent of their shares
and remains valid to the extent of the father’s 1/3 share.
20. It is well settled that the manager of a Hindu joint family is
competent to alienate joint family property for family necessity or for the
benefit of the estate, and such an alienation binds not only the manager’s share
but also the shares of the other coparceners. Though a father-manager enjoys
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/11/2025 05:03:46 pm )
certain special privileges, the manager’s power to effect such alienations of
joint family property in the contingencies recognized by law is coextensive,
which would be binding on the other coparceners as well in certain
contingencies; an alienation that does not meet this standard of family
necessity is not void but only voidable. Accordingly, the trial court’s rejection
of the prayer for a declaration that the sale is null and void is affirmed.
21. However, the trial court’s observation directing allotment of a “0.70
share” to the second defendant requires modification. As the precise metes and
bounds cannot presently be determined, the second defendant shall, in the final
decree proceedings, be entitled to have carved out of the first defendant’s 1/3
share such portion as corresponds to the property conveyed under the sale
deed dated 10.10.2005.
22. While passing the final decree, the trial court shall ascertain and
allot to the second defendant an appropriate extent and corresponding value,
having due regard to soil value and other relevant factors.
23. In the result,
a) The sale deed dated 10.10.2005 executed by the first defendant in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/11/2025 05:03:46 pm )
favour of the second defendant is valid only to the extent of the first
defendant’s one-third share.
b) It is not binding on the plaintiffs’ two-third share.
c) The second defendant shall be entitled to seek allotment in the final
decree proceedings corresponding to the share purchased by him out of
the first defendant’s portion.
d) With this modification, the appeal is dismissed.
e) No order as to costs. Connected Civil Miscellaneous Petitions, if any,
are closed.
14.11.2025
dpq
Index: Yes / No
Speaking Order / Non-speaking Order
Neutral Citation: Yes / No
To
1. The Principal District Court
Cuddalore.
2.The Section Officer,
VR Section,
High Court of Madras,
Chennai
DR. A.D. MARIA CLETE, J
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/11/2025 05:03:46 pm )
dpq
14.11.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/11/2025 05:03:46 pm )
