Madras High Court
Ramadasee vs Seshammal (Died) on 16 September, 2025
AS No. 501 of 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 16-09-2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S. SOUNTHAR
AS No. 501 of 2011 and
CMP No.11708 of 2017
Ramadasee ... Appellant
Vs.
1. Seshammal (died)
2. Malarkodi
3. Kumaraguru
4. Gunavathy
6. Gnanamani
6. Mahalakshmi
7. Vijayakumari ... Respondents
(R1 died, sole appellant and R2 to R7, who were already on record,
are recorded as LRs of the deceased R1, vide order dated 17.02.2025
made in A.S.No.501 of 2011)
1 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 11:33:05 am )
AS No. 501 of 2011
PRAYER: Appeal suit filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure
against the judgment and decree of the learned Principal District Judge,
Puducherry dated 28.07.2011 made in O.S.No.47 of 2007.
For Appellant : Mr.S.Sudarshan
for Mr.R.Subramanian
For Respondents : R1- died
Ms.R.Meenal for R2 to R7
JUDGMENT
The unsuccessful plaintiff in a suit for partition is the appellant herein.
2. The appellant filed a suit in O.S.No.47 of 2007 on the file of the
Principal District Jude, Puducherry seeking 1/7th share in the suit properties.
The said suit was dismissed by the Trial Court. Hence, the appellant/plaintiff
has come by way of this appeal.
3. According to the appellant/ plaintiff, Item Nos.1, 2 and 3 in the suit
properties were purchased by the plaintiff's father, namely Gnanasegarane alias
Kanagaraji in the name of plaintiff's mother Seshammal/first defendant. The
2 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 11:33:05 am )
defendants 2 to 7 are the siblings of the plaintiff. Suit Item No.4 of the
properties was released in favour of the plaintiff's father, Gnanasegrane @
Kanagaraji by his siblings through a registered release deed dated 28.04.1980.
Therefore, according to the appellant/ plaintiff, the suit properties were self
acquired properties of the plaintiff's father and after his death, the plaintiff is
entitled to 1/7th share in all the items of the suit properties. Hence, he laid the
suit for partition.
4. The mother of the appellant/ plaintiff, namely the first defendant filed a
written statement and resisted the suit on the ground that the Item Nos.1 to 3 of
the suit properties were her separate properties. According to her, the properties
were purchased out of her Sridhana and the amounts paid by her father and not
out of the contribution made by her husband, namely, the father of the plaintiff.
3 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 11:33:05 am )
5. As far as the item No.4 of the suit properties is concerned, the first
defendant admitted that the said property was released in favour of the plaintiff's
father by his siblings and therefore, the plaintiff as well as the defendants were
entitled to 1/8th share each in the said item.
6. The Trial Court, based on the above pleadings, framed the following
issues.
1. Whether the suit properties are the self acquired
properties of late Gnanasegarane @ Kanagaraji?
2. Whether the items 1 to 3 of schedule of properties
are the absolute properties of first defendant?
3. Whether the itme No4 of schedule of properties is
joint family property?
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to 1/7th share in
the suit properties?
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to future mesne
profits? At what rate?
6. Whether the court fee paid is correct?
7. To what relief?
4 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 11:33:05 am )
7. Based on the pleadings, the parties went to the trial. On the side of the
plaintiff, the plaintiff was examined as PW1 and 12 documents were marked as
Ex.A1 to Ex.A12. On the side of the defendants, the first defendant was
examined as DW1.
8. On appreciation of evidence available on record, the Trial Court came
to the conclusion that the Item Nos.1 to 3 of the suit properties were self
acquired properties of the first defendant and dismissed the suit in respect of
those items. As far as the item No.4 is concerned, the Trial Court granted
decree for 1/8th share in favour of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the dismissal of
the suit in respect of item Nos.1 to 3, the plaintiff has preferred this appeal.
9. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the
first defendant did not have any independent source of income of her own. The
properties were purchased out of the contribution made by her husband, namely,
Gnanasegarane @ Kanagaraji. The learned counsel for the appellant by relying
upon Ex.A7, submits that the recitals in the said document would conclusively
5 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 11:33:05 am )
prove that the plaintiff's father had sold the property to discharge the loan
amount incurred by him to purchase the properties in the name of first
defendant. Learned counsel further submits that the Trial Court, without taking
into consideration the recitals in Ex.A7, erroneously came to the conclusion that
the Item Nos.1 to 3 of the suit properties were the self acquired properties of
Seshammal/first defendant.
10. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 to 7
would submit that the recitals in Ex.A8, Ex.A9 and Ex.A10 would conclusively
prove that the sale consideration for purchase of the property moved from the
first defendant. The learned counsel, by taking this court to the recitals found in
E.A10 would submit that the sale consideration for purchase of the property
covered under Ex.A10 was set off towards the liabilities of the vendor as against
the purchaser/first defendant. The learned counsel further submits that the
registered sale deeds stand in the name of the first defendant and hence, the
Trial Court was justified in coming to the conclusion that the properties were
purchased by her.
6 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 11:33:05 am )
11. Heard the rival submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant/plaintiff and the respondents/defendants 2 to 7. The copies of the
exhibits and the evidence of PW1 and DW1 were produced by the respective
counsel and the same were perused.
12. Based on the pleadings and the submission of the learned counsel
appearing on either side, the following points are arising for consideration in
this first appeal.
1. Whether the Item Nos.1, 2 and 3 of the suit properties are self acquired
properties of the first defendant?
2. Whether the appeal filed by the plaintiff is deserved to be allowed?
13. It is the specific case of the appellant/plaintiff that the first
respondent/ first defendant had no independent source of income and the
properties were purchased only by her husband Gnanasegarane @ Kanagaraji
by utilising his own funds. In respect of the said plea raised by the appellant,
the learned counsel for the plaintiff relied upon the Ex.A3 and Ex.A4 letters
7 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 11:33:05 am )
written by the vendor (Devarasu) of the first defendant under Ex.A9. A perusal
of the same would establish that the father of the appellant/plaintiff had paid a
sum of Rs.200/- and Rs.90/- respectively as hand loans to the said Devarasu.
However, as per Ex.A9, registered sale deed executed by Devarasu in favour of
the first defendant under Ex.A9, a total sale consideration said to have been paid
by the first defendant was Rs.3,500/-. The amount of Rs.200/- and Rs.90/-
mentioned in Ex.A3 and Ex.A4, even assuming to be true, would be hardly not
sufficient to meet the total consideration mentioned in Ex.A9. Therefore, Ex.A3
and Ex.A4 are not useful to come to the conclusion that the sale consideration
of Rs.3,500/- paid by Seshammal/first defendant under Ex.A9 was moved from
her husband.
14. The learned counsel for the appellant by taking this court to the
recitals found in Ex.A7, submits that the property covered under Ex.A7 was
sold by his father Gnanasegarane @ Kanagaraji just to discharge the loan
incurred by him to purchase the properties in the name of the first defendant
under Ex.A10, dated 09.08.1976. However, a perusal of Ex.A10 would indicate
8 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 11:33:05 am )
that the total sale consideration for the property covered under Ex.A10 was
Rs.4,000/-. The split up details of the sale consideration mentioned in Ex.A10
runs as follows.
a) Rs.1,400/- was adjusted towards the bond executed
by the vendor in favour of the purchaser, Seshammal/first
defendant.
b) Rs.1,000/-, was adjusted, as the purchaser
Seshammal agreed to discharge the mortgage debt incurred by
the vendor.
c) Rs.1,600/- was adjusted towards the amount received
by the vendor from the purchaser, even prior to the date of
execution of sale deed.
From the above, it is clear that on the date of execution of Ex.A10, no amount
was paid by the first defendant in favour of the vendor under the document.
Two transactions, namely (a) and (c) were relating to the past transactions
between the vendor and the purchaser under the document. The transaction
mentioned in (b) is a promise given by the purchaser to discharge the mortgage
debt incurred by the vendor. In such circumstances, the recitals mentioned in
9 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 11:33:05 am )
Ex.A7 may not be useful to come to the conclusion that the sale consideration
for purchase of the properties covered under Ex.A10 was moved from the first
defendant's husband namely Gnanasegarane @ Kanagaraji.
15. A perusal of Ex.A8, Ex.A9 and Ex.A10 would establish that the first
defendant paid a sum of Rs.2,000/- to the vendor under Ex.A8 and purchased
the Item No.1 of the suit properties. Likewise, she paid a sum of Rs.2,500/- to
the vendor under Ex.A9 and purchased Item No.2 of the suit properties.
Further, the sale consideration of Rs.4,000/- for the properties covered under
Ex.A10 was paid as mentioned above and item No.3 was purchased in the name
of the first defendant. Therefore, as per the recitals in Ex.A8, Ex.A9 and
Ex.A10, the sale consideration for purchase of the properties was moved from
the first defendant and not from her husband. Whenever properties are
purchased in the name of the female member of the Hindu family, the
presumption is the property is her separate property. In this regard, reference
may be had to Nagayasami Naidu and others Vs. Kochadai Naidu and others
reported in AIR 1969 Mad. 329.
10 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 11:33:05 am )
16. It is also settled law, whenever property was purchased by husband in
the name of his wife, there is a presumption that it was purchased for her
benefit, unless the contrary is proved. In the case on hand, there is nothing to
suggest that the properties were not purchased for the benefit of the first
defendant. Therefore, this court is unable to accept the plea raised by the
appellant that the Item Nos.1 to 3 of the suit properties were purchased out of
the funds of the appellant/plaintiff's father in the name of the first defendant and
hence, it shall be treated as his property. The point No.1 is answered
accordingly against the appellant/plaintiff.
17. In view of the conclusion reached by this court as above, Point No.2
is answered against the appellant and the appeal is deserved to be dismissed.
18. Accordingly, the first appeal is dismissed, confirming the judgment
and decree passed by the Trial Court. Connected miscellaneous petition is
closed. No costs.
16.09.2025
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
MST
11 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 11:33:05 am )
To
The Principal District Judge,
Puducherry.
12 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 11:33:05 am )
S.SOUNTHAR, J.
MST
A.S.No.501 OF 2011
16.09.2025
13 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 11:33:05 am )
