[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
B.Amirthalingam vs Gnanasundari (Died) on 28 November, 2025
S.A.No.606 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 28.11.2025
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE A.D.MARIA CLETE
S.A. No. 606 of 2014
B.Amirthalingam
S/o. Balasundaram Pillai
No. 17, Bakthavatsalam Street,
Minjur and Post- 601 203,
Ponneri Taluk ...Appellant
Vs.
1. Gnanasundari (Died)
2. Manicka Pillai (Died)
3. Shanthi D/o. Manicka Pillai
4. Vasantha D/o. Manicka Pillai
3 and 4 are residing at No. 26-A,
Lal Bhagadur 3rd Street,
Minjur and Post- 601 203 ...Respondents
PRAYER: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure
praying to set aside the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No. 80 of 1997 on the
file of the Principal District Judge at Chengalpattu dated 05.11.2013 confirming
the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No. 53 of 1990 on the file of Principal
Subordinate Court, Thiruvellore dated 04.04.1997 and pass such other suitable
orders and thus render justice.
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 04:35:12 pm )
S.A.No.606 of 2014
For Appellant : Mr.C.Jagadish.
For Respondents : R1 & R2 – Died.
Mr. M.S. Subramanian for R3 & R4.
Mr. Suresh Sampath for R5.
JUDGMENT
Heard.
2.This Second Appeal is filed by the first defendant against the judgment
and decree dated 05.11.2013 made in A.S.No.80 of 1997 by the Principal District
Judge, Chengalpattu, confirming the judgment and decree dated 03.04.1997 in
O.S.No.53 of 1990 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Thiruvallur.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the
suit.
4. The back ground of the case in Nutshell: The case has a long and
complicated procedural history between close family members, namely the
plaintiff and her brother, the first defendant.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 04:35:12 pm )
5. The plaintiff instituted the suit for partition against her brother, arraying
her husband as the second defendant, claiming 2/3rd share in the suit property. The
unusual feature of the claim is that the plaintiff did not claim as an heir of her
parents but claimed succession through her predeceased sons in the joint family
property of her husband.
6. According to the plaintiff, the suit property was the ancestral property of
the second defendant, her husband. Through him, she gave birth to two sons and
two daughters. The two sons predeceased her and her husband. The daughters are
respondents 3 and 4 in this appeal, representing their deceased mother, the
plaintiff.
7.The plaintiff’s case was that her two sons were coparceners in a
Mitakshara joint family along with their father. Since both sons died intestate after
the commencement of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, she claimed that she, being
a Class I heir, inherited the shares of her deceased sons and thus became entitled to
2/3rd share in the suit property.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 04:35:12 pm )
8.The plaintiff further pleaded that the sale deed dated 21.06.1974 executed
by her husband in favour of her brother is not binding upon her share and
accordingly sought partition and separate possession.
9.The first defendant contested the suit stating that he had purchased the
property absolutely from the second defendant; after purchase, the plaintiff and her
husband were residing as tenants; after eviction proceedings, possession was
recovered from them;even assuming the birth of two sons, the second defendant as
karta of the family was competent to sell the ancestral property for family
necessity;the suit is only a result of collusion between the plaintiff and her
husband.
10. The Trial Court decreed the suit granting preliminary decree declaring
that the plaintiff is entitled to 2/3rd share.Aggrieved, the 1stdefendant preferred
A.S.No.80 of 1997, and the first appellate court initially reversed the decree and
dismissed the suit by judgment dated 14.11.1997, mainly on the ground that the
dates of death of the two sons were not proved.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 04:35:12 pm )
11. It was observed that if the sons had died prior to 17.06.1956, the
commencement of the Hindu Succession Act, the devolution would be by
survivorship and not by succession. The plaintiff relied upon Ex. A1 and Ex.A2 to
prove dates of birth, but did not produce death certificates.
12. The plaintiff aggrieved by the order of appellate court order then filed
S.A.No.606 of 1999 along with C.M.P.No.13005 of 1999 seeking to receive death
certificates as additional evidence.
13. By order dated 27.03.2013, this Court set aside the appellate court
Judgment and decree and remitted the matter to the first appellate court with a
limited direction:to permit evidence only regarding the dates of death of the two
sons and to adjudicate accordingly.
14.After remand, the appellate court examined: P.W.3 – daughter of the
plaintiff and P.W.4 – tenant who had resided near the family. The following
documents were received as additional evidence:
Ex. A3 – Death certificate of Loganathan (03.08.1956)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 04:35:12 pm )
Ex. A4 – Death certificate of Shanmugam (10.12.1958)
Ex. A5 – Birth certificate dated 10.05.1956
15. On appreciation of the additional evidence, the appellate court found
that the two sons died after the commencement of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956
and therefore the plaintiff, being their mother, succeeded to their shares.
Accordingly, the appellate court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the decree of
trial court.
16. The 1st defendant as appellant raised several grounds primarily
questioning:admissibility of Exs.A3 to A5, manner of proof and compliance with
remand directions.All these grounds essentially relate to appreciation of evidence.
17. It is seen that the witnesses were examined in compliance with remand
directions. The documents are public documents. Full opportunity of cross-
examination was given. The scope of remand was strictly adhered to. No
procedural lapse or illegality is found in the manner in which additional evidence
was admitted and considered.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 04:35:12 pm )
18. It is well settled that under Section 100 CPC, this Court cannot interfere
with concurrent findings of fact unless perversity, illegality, or misapplication of
law is demonstrated.The findings of the appellate court are supported by pleading,
evidence and statutory principles governing succession.No substantial question of
law arises.
19. In view of the above discussion, this Second Appeal stands dismissed at
the admission stage.There shall be no order as to costs.Consequently, the
connected miscellaneous petition, if any, stands closed.
28.11.2025
ay
Index : Yes/No
NCC : Yes/No
Speaking Order / Non-Speaking Order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 04:35:12 pm )
DR. A.D. MARIA CLETE, J
ay
To
1.The Principal District Judge, Chengalpattu.
2.The Principal Subordinate Court, Thiruvellore.
3.The Section Officer,
V.R.Section,
High Court of Madras.
Dated: 28.11.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 04:35:12 pm )
