Madras High Court
P. Kandasamy vs N.S.Perumal on 21 November, 2025
S.A.Nos.20 & 21 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on 29.08.2025
Pronounced on 21.11.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE K.GOVINDARAJAN
THILAKAVADI
S.A.Nos.20 & 21 of 2019 and C.M.P. No.374 of 2019
P. Kandasamy ...Appellant in both the appeals
Vs.
1. N.S.Perumal
2. K. Govindaraj ...Respondents in S.A. No.20/2019
1. K. Govindaraj
2. Nagasamy Reddy
3. Velayutham ...Respondents in S.A. No.21/2019
Prayer in S.A. No.20 of 2019 : Second Appeal filed under Section 100
CPC, 1908 against the judgment and decree dated 19.07.2017 passed in
A.S. No.28 of 2014, on the file of the Sub Court, Tiruttani, confirming
the Judgment and decree dated 28.11.2011 passed in O.S.No.96 of 2009,
on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tiruttani.
Page 1 of 21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/11/2025 06:08:25 pm )
S.A.Nos.20 & 21 of 2019
Prayer in S.A. No.21 of 2019 : Second Appeal filed under Section 100
CPC, 1908 against the judgment and decree dated 19.07.2017 passed in
A.S. No.3 of 2013, on the file of the Sub Court, Tiruttani, reversing the
Judgment and decree dated 28.11.2011 passed in O.S.No.8 of 2005, on
the file of the District Munsif Court, Tiruttani.
For Appellant : Mr. S. Sathia Chandran
for Mr. D. Ashok Kumar
(in both the appeals)
For Respondents : Ms. S. Shyamala
for Mr. C. Chokkalingam
for R1 and R2 in S.A. No.20/2019
for R1 in S.A. No.21/2019
R2 & R3 given up in S.A.No.21/2019
(endorsement made in the bundle)
COMMON JUDGMENT
Challenge in these Second Appeals is made to the common
judgment and decree dated 19.07.2017 passed in A.S. No.3 of 2013 and
A.S. No.28 of 2014 on the file of the Sub Court, Tiruttani, reversing the
common judgment and decree passed in respect of O.S. No.8/2005 and
confirming O.S. No.96/2009 dated 28.11.2011 on the file of the District
Munsif Court, Tiruttani.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/11/2025 06:08:25 pm )
S.A.Nos.20 & 21 of 2019
2. The suit in O.S. No.8/2005 is filed by one Govindaraj against
the defendant Nagasamy Reddy, Velayutham and one Kandasamy for
declaration of title and permanent injunction. According to the plaintiff,
the suit property originally belongs to one Appavoo Reddy, S/o.
Mangapathy Reddy of Pattabhiramapuram Village. Appavoo Reddy
married one Govindammal in the year 1947 while he was in Malaysia
and a son by name Govindasamy was born to them. Appavoo Reddy
again married Apurupammal at Malaysia in the year 1949 as his second
wife and had three daughters. He came to India leaving his two wives
and children. The first wife Govindammal then came to India along with
her son Govindasamy and lived at Pattahiramapuram along with him. Her
son Govindasamy died at the age of 18 years unmarried. Appavoo Reddy
brought his youngest daughter Rathinammal born to Apurupammal to
India and married her to one Manicka Reddy. Appavoo Reddy,
Govindammal, Rathinammal and her husband Manicka Reddy lived
together at pattabhiramapuram by cultivating the suit lands. Appavoo
Reddy's second wife and her two daughters settled at Malaysia itself and
they became citizens of that country. They did not come to India. Later
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/11/2025 06:08:25 pm )
S.A.Nos.20 & 21 of 2019
the said Apurupammal also died. Appavoo Reddy has executed a
registered will dated 31.10.1975 bequeathing all his properties at
Pattabhiramapuram to his daughter Rathinammal and then died on
10.12.1975. Rathinammal became the absolute owner of the said
property mentioned in the suit schedule. She had patta for the items 1 to
3 of the suit property in her narme and Patta for Item No.4 stands in her
father's name under Patta No.23. Rathinammal was paying kist till her
death on 01.05.2000 in respect of the suit property. Her husband Manicka
Reddy predeceased her in or about 1995. They had no issues. So, her step
mother Govindammal who is the only sole surviving legal heir succeeded
to the suit property after the death of Rathinammal. Govindammal sold
items 1 to 3 and 5 of the suit property to N.S. Perumal for valid
consideration under registered sale deed dated 5.5.2000 and possession
was also given to him. N.S. Perumal orally purchased the item No.4 of
the suit property and took possession of the same. Plaintiff purchased the
item No.1 to 5 of the suit property from N.S. Perumal under registered
sale deed dated 4.3.2004 for valid consideration and took possession of
the same. Even before 25.09.2003, Govindammal has given her right of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/11/2025 06:08:25 pm )
S.A.Nos.20 & 21 of 2019
enjoyment of 2 C Patta mentioned in item N.6 to the plaintiff by
executing an acceptance letter in his favour. Therefore, the plaintiff is the
absolute owner of the suit properties. Since the Government has waived
the land tax for two years due to drought the plaintiff has not paid any tax
after his purchase. While, so the defendants without any right are
attempting to interfere with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over
the suit properties. Hence, the plaintiff has come forward with the suit.
3. The claim of the plaintiff was resisted by the defendants 1 and 2
by stating that Appavoo Reddy has not married the aforesaid
Govindammal and no son was born to her through him. In the year 1981
Rathinammal sold the suit properties to the defendants under oral sale
for Rs.10,000/- and put the 1st defendant in possession of the suit
properties. Rathinammal, the vendor of the suit properties handed over
all the documents such as original registered Will dated 31.10.1975
executed by her father, house patta, revenue tax receipts, etc. standing in
her name to the defendant. Hence the defendant is the absolute owner of
the suit properties. Govindammal is a total a stranger to the family of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/11/2025 06:08:25 pm )
S.A.Nos.20 & 21 of 2019
Rathinammal and hence she has no right, title over the suit properties.
Hence the sale under the sale deed dated 05.05.2000 by Govindammal to
N.S. Perumal is not valid in law. Govindammal was married to a third
person and she along with her sons and grand sons settled at Tiruchi. One
Kandan has made unlawful claim over the suit properties and the
defendant has filed a suit for declaration and injunction against him in
O.S.NO.90 of 2001 and the said suit is pending. The said Kandan,
Govindammal, Perumal and Govindaraj are relatives and created the suit.
The defendant along with his son, the 2nd defendant are in enjoyment of
the suit properties from 1981 and thus perfected his title by adverse
possession also. Hence the suit has to be dismissed.
4. The 3rd defendant resisted the suit filed by the plaintiff by stating
that the said Govindammal is in no way connected with Rathinammal
and that she is not the legal heir of the said Rathinammal. The said
Manicka Reddy, husband of Rathinammal is the junior paternal uncle of
the 3rd defendant and younger brother of his father Periasamy Reddy. The
said Manicka Reddy executed a registered will on 28.02.1985 in favour
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/11/2025 06:08:25 pm )
S.A.Nos.20 & 21 of 2019
of the 3rd Defendant, his brother munusamy, and his another brother's
daughter bequeathing all his immovable properties and the said Manicka
Reddy died in the month of 1985 and the said Will came into force and
the 3rd defendant and others became absolute owners of the suit
properties. The 3rd defendant done all the last rites after the death of
Manicka Reddy and thereafter Rathinammal was living with the 3rd
defendant. Rathinammal also died on 01.05.2000 intestate leaving behind
the suit properties without class I heirs. Her mother Apurvammal also
died before her. The 3rd defendant is the class II legal heir of
Rathinammal, as she is the paternal uncle's wife and after her death, the
defendant took possession of the suit properties. He had paid kist in the
name of Rathinammal. He had given a petition to the revenue people for
transfer of patta in his name and the same is pending. The plaintiff or his
vendor and defendants 1 and 2 have no right over the suit properties.
There is no cause of action hence the suit has to be dismissed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/11/2025 06:08:25 pm )
S.A.Nos.20 & 21 of 2019
5. The 3rd defendant in O.S. No.8/2005 filed a suit in
O.S.NO.96/09 against one N.S.Perumal and one Govindaraj, the plaintiff
in O.S. No.8/2005, for declaration of title and interest in the schedule
mentioned properties and for permanent injunction with the same
averments mentioned in the written statement filed by him in O.S.
No.8/2005.
6. The 2nd defendant resisted the suit, which was adopted by the
1st defendant, by stating that he is in actual possession and enjoyment
of the suit property. He then filed the suit in O.S.8/2005 against
Nagasamy Reddy and his son and got interim injunction against them,
stating that the suit property belongs to Rathinammal who got it from her
father Appavoo Reddy under registered will dated 31.10.1975 and she
died intestate on 01.05.2000 without any issue. Her husband Manicka
Reddy also died in the year 1995. Since Rathinammal got suit property
from her father it had devolved upon the heirs of her father as per law. So
her father's first wife Govindammal succeeded to the suit property. The
said Govindammal validly sold the suit property to 1st defendant under a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/11/2025 06:08:25 pm )
S.A.Nos.20 & 21 of 2019
registered sale deed dated 05.05.2000 and handed over possession. The
1st defendant sold the property to the 2nd defendant under registered sale
deed dated 04.03.2004 and had given possession to him. The 2nd
defendant is in actual possession of the suit property and he has got patta
in his name and paying kist. The plaintiff is not in possession of the suit
properties. There is no cause of action and hence the suit has to be
dismissed.
7. The trail court upon considering the oral and documentary
evidences adduced by the respective parties and the arguments advanced
by the respective counsel, dismissed both the suits in O.S. No.8/2005 and
O.S. No.96/2009 against which appeal suits in A.S. No.3/2013, A.S.
No.28/2014 were preferred by the plaintiffs in the above suits.
8. The first appellate court upon considering the materials on
record, allowed the appeal suit in A.S. No.3/2013 and dismissed the
appeal suit in A.S.No.28/2014. Challenging the same, the present second
appeals are preferred by Kandasamy, the 3rd defendant in O.S. No.8/2005
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/11/2025 06:08:25 pm )
S.A.Nos.20 & 21 of 2019
and plaintiff in O.S. No.96/2009.
9. S.A. No.20 of 2019 has been admitted on the following
substantial questions of law:
i. "Whether the courts below are correct in law in not decreeing the
prayer of the plaintiff in O.S. No.96 of 2009 when it is admitted
case that he is the nephew of Manicka Reddy, husband of
Rathinammal and therefore under Section 15(1)(b) of the Hindu
Succession Act, he being the legal heir of the husband of
Rathinammal, is entitled to the property?
ii. Whether the lower appellate court is correct in law in holding that
the 3rd defendant was not the legal heir of Rathinammal, when the
same is not admitted by the defendants?"
10. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant / 3rd defendant
would submit that the first appellate court has rendered a finding that, the
said Govindammal was the sole heir of Rathinammal and hence, Ex.A4
sale deed executed in favour of N.S.Perumal was valid and in turn,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/11/2025 06:08:25 pm )
S.A.Nos.20 & 21 of 2019
Govindaraj who bought the suit properties from N.S.Perumal under
Ex.A11 is entitled to the relief of declaration of title and as a
consequence that title follows possession, he is entitled to the relief of
permanent injunction, which is erroneous. He would submit that from the
averments in the plaint in O.S. No.8/2005 filed by Govindaraj and the
evidence let in by him, it is made clear that Govindammal was only a step
mother of Rathinammal and hence, by no stretch of imagination,
Govindammal can be construed as the legal heir of Rathinammal. The
plaintiff Govindaraj examined as P.W.1 has admitted in the cross
examination that the said Govindammal was residing with him, but he
failed to examine her, who alleged to be the original vendor, shakes the
very foundation of the plaintiff's claim of right and title over the suit
properties. Even if Govindammal admitted to be the wife of Appavoo
Reddy by virtue of her efforts to get the death certificate dated
28.05.2001 of Appavoo Reddy, the same will not amount to an admission
or proof that Govindammal was legal heir of Rathinammal as she is only
the step mother of Rathinammal. When the plaintiff has clearly admitted
that the suit properties were bequeathed to Rathinammal by her father
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/11/2025 06:08:25 pm )
S.A.Nos.20 & 21 of 2019
through Ex.A1 Will and after the death of Appavoo Reddy, his Will came
into effect by virtue of which, Rathinammal got the suit properties. Thus,
the suit properties became the self acquired properties of Rathinammal
and therefore, the said Govindammal is not entitled to inherit the same
from Rathinammal as she is only her step mother. Therefore, Ex.A11 sale
deed executed by Govindammal in favour of N.S.Perumal was non est in
law and the said Govindaraj has no right or title over the suit properties.
10.1. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the
appellant that the first appellate court's finding is based on Ex.A10
computer patta issued in favour of Govindaraj, which also have no legal
validity as the same was issued based on the sale deed which is non est in
law. His further contention is that, the findings of the first appellate court
that Rathinammal inherited the suit properties from her father Appavoo
Reddy under Ex.A1 Will is basically erroneous, since the same is
transformed into self acquired properties as per the Will executed by her
father. The first appellate court dismissed the appeal suit filed by the
appellant Kandasamy by holding that he did not file any document to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/11/2025 06:08:25 pm )
S.A.Nos.20 & 21 of 2019
show that the said Govindammal was not the wife of Appavoo Reddy and
that the appellant failed to prove the fact that Manicka Reddy was
Kandasamy's uncle and failed to prove his possession and enjoyment in
the suit properties. He would submit that it is well settled law that, the
onus to prove the fact lies with the person who affirms it. On the
contrary, the first appellate court dismissed the appeal suit holding that
the appellant failed to prove his case. Even otherwise, the said
Govindammal being the step mother of Rathinammal cannot directly
inherit the properties of Rathinammal as per Hindu Succession Act. The
appellant has filed Ex.B21, the registered Will of Manicka Reddy, the
husband of Rathinammal, to prove that he is the nephew of Manicka
Reddy and also by examining two witnesses, D.W.2 and D.W.4 to
establish the execution of the Will. The appellant proved his possession
and enjoyment of the suit properties by marking the kist receipts in the
names of Appavoo Reddy and Rathinammal. While so, the first appellate
court erred in rendering a finding that there was no mutation of revenue
records in the name of the appellant and failed to appreciate that even the
plaintiff Govindaraj had not filed any documents to establish his
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/11/2025 06:08:25 pm )
S.A.Nos.20 & 21 of 2019
possession and enjoyment in the suit properties. The appellant has clearly
proved the execution of Ex.B21 Will in his favour and as per
Section15(1b) of the Hindu Succession Act, the properties of a Hindu
female shall devolve upon the heirs of the husband. In the present case, it
is an admitted fact that Rathinammal got the suit properties by way of her
father's Will. Thus, the suit properties came into her hands not by
inheritance but by testation. Hence, Rathinammal became the absolute
owner of the suit properties and the properties assumed the character of
self acquired properties of Rathinammal. Therefore, after her demise, the
same devolved upon her husband as per Section 15(1)(b) of the Hindu
Succession Act,1956. He would further submit that the first appellate
court erred in holding that the appellant was not the legal heir of
Rathinammal. In fact, the appellant through concrete evidence has
established that he is the nephew of Manicka Reddy, husband of
Rathinammal. By applying the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in C.N. Arunachala Mudaliar vs. C.A. Muruganandha Mudaliar
reported in AIR 1953 SC 495 and in the case of Govinbhai Chhotabhai
Patel & Ors vs. Patel Ramanbhai Mathurbhai reported in AIR 2019 SC
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/11/2025 06:08:25 pm )
S.A.Nos.20 & 21 of 2019
4822. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that, the properties
of Rathinammal got by virtue of Ex.A1 Will is undoubtedly construed as
her self acquired properties. He would submit that the Hon'ble Supreme
Court while dealing with the conundrum of inheritance of dispossession
of property not inherited either from parents family or husband's family,
but a self acquired one, laid down the law in the case of Om Prakash
and others vs. Radha Charan and others reported in (2009) 15 SCC 66
that a Hindu female's self acquired properties would devolve upon the
heirs of her husband as per Section 15(1)(B) of the Hindu Succession
Act. Therefore, the findings of the first appellate court are patently erred
in law and liable to be set aside.
11. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the
respondent Govindaraj, plaintiff in O.S. No.8/2005 would submit that the
appeal suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff on the grounds that the
appellant failed to prove that he is the legal heir of Manicka Reddy and
the other legal heirs of Manicka Reddy were not impleaded as necessary
parties and also on the ground that the Will produced by the appellant is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/11/2025 06:08:25 pm )
S.A.Nos.20 & 21 of 2019
not related to the suit properties. He would submit that it is not in
dispute that the said Govindammal was the legal heir of Appavoo Reddy.
He would submit that the said Rathinammal inherited the suit properties
from her father. The said Rathinammal died in the year 2000 where as,
her husband died in the year 1995. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Radika
vs. Aghnu Ram Mahto reported in (1994) 5 SCC 761 held that any
property inherited by a female Hindu from her father or mother dying
intestate shall devolve to the legal heir of the father in the absence of any
son or daughter of the deceased and not upon the other heirs of the
predeceased husband. If there are no issues to the deceased female Hindu
even her husband stood excluded from succession to the estate of her. He
further submitted that Section 15(1)(b) will not be applicable to the
properties inherited from the father and that even if the properties are
inherited by way of a gift, it will devolve to the legal heirs of the father.
The property inherited by way of a Will declares that pre existing right of
the female Hindu over the inherited property was absolute and the word
'inherit' means to receive as heir that is by succession. It is further
submitted that in the present case the appellant has not added all
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/11/2025 06:08:25 pm )
S.A.Nos.20 & 21 of 2019
necessary parties which is primary to claim rights in the suit property. In
support of his contentions, he relied on the following decisions.
i. Judgment of the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court dated
24.11.2016 in Appeal (Civil) 6626 of 1995 (Mottaiyandi Chettiyar
(died) vs. Saroja (died) reported in 2016 SCC OnLine Mad 33743
ii. Judgment of Karnataka High Court dated 20.12.2013 in the case of
Thippeswamy vs. Rangappa reported in (2014) ICC 276 (Kant)
iii. Maniyamma K.P. Vs. Harikumar & Ors 2021 SCC Online Ker 883
iv. V. Dhanpani Chettiar vs. Balasubramanian Chettial (dead) by lrs
and others reported in (2003) 6 SCC 633
v. Vash Bahadur Sabhajeet Yadav v. Dudhnath Kallu Yadav and
others reported in 2018 SCC online Bom 153
vi. Civil Appeal Nos.5755-5756 of 2011 (Moreshar s/o. Yadaorao
Mahajan vs. Vyankatesh Sitaram Bhedi (D), through Lrs and others
reported in 2022 INSC 1027
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/11/2025 06:08:25 pm )
S.A.Nos.20 & 21 of 2019
12.Heard on both sides. Records perused.
13. It is not in dispute that the suit properties originally belonged
to one Appavoo Reddy. According to the respondent/ plaintiff, the said
Govindammal is the wife of Appavoo Reddy and Rathinammal is the
daughter of Appavoo Reddy through his second wife Apurupammal. The
further contention of the plaintiff is that the said Appavoo Reddy
executed Ex.A1 Will in favour of his daughter Rathinammal and after his
death, the Will came into force. The said Rathinammal died intestate and
therefore, the property devolved upon Govindammal, the first wife of
Appavoo Reddy who executed Ex.A4 sale deed in favour of one N.S.
Perumal, the 2nd defendant in O.S. No.96/2009. The plaintiff purchased
the suit property under Ex.A11 from the said N.S. Perumal and became
the absolute owner of the suit properties. On the other hand, the
contention of the appellant / 3rd defendant is that Appavoo Reddy never
married Govindammal and that he being the relative of Manicka Reddy,
husband of Rathinammal, he is the only legal heir of Rathinammal after
her death and entitled to suit property as per the Ex.B21 Will executed in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/11/2025 06:08:25 pm )
S.A.Nos.20 & 21 of 2019
his favour by the husband of Rathinammal. The fact remains that the
husband Manicka Reddy, predeceased Rathinammal. The first appellate
court upon perusing the materials on record found that the properties
mentioned in Ex.B21 Will are not the suit properties. It is further held
that the appellant / 3rd defendant failed to establish his possession and
enjoyment in the suit properties. Moreover, the first appellate court
placing reliance on Ex.A13 came to the conclusion that the said
Govindammal is the wife of Appavoo Reddy. The first appellate court
also held that since Rathinammal got the properties from her father
Appavoo Reddy and died issueless and her husband having predeceased,
came to the conclusion that Govindammal is entitled to the suit
properties and since plaintiff had purchased the suit property for valuable
consideration and proved his possession and enjoyment in the suit
properties by producing the revenue records granted the reliefs claimed
by the plaintiff in O/S. No.8/2005. No perversity or infirmity is found in
the said findings of the first appellate court. Therefore, I do not see any
question of law much less a substantial question of law in order to enable
me to entertain the present second appeals.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/11/2025 06:08:25 pm )
S.A.Nos.20 & 21 of 2019
14. In the result,
i. The Second Appeals are dismissed. No costs. Consequently
connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
ii. The common judgment and decree dated 19.07.2017 passed in
A.S. No.3 of 2013 and A.S. No.28 of 2014 on the file of the Sub
Court, Tiruttani, is upheld.
21.11.2025
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-Speaking order
bga
To
1. The Subordinate Judge, Tiruttani.
2. The District Munsif, Tiruttani.
3. The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/11/2025 06:08:25 pm )
S.A.Nos.20 & 21 of 2019
K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI,J
bga
Pre delivery common Judgment in
S.A.Nos.20 & 21 of 2019 and
21.11.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/11/2025 06:08:25 pm )
