Madras High Court
Karuppanan vs Irullappan (Died) on 18 September, 2025
S.A.(MD)No.36 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on : 11.08.2025
Pronounced on : 18.09.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE A.D. MARIA CLETE
S.A.(MD)No.36 of 2018
1. Karuppanan,
S/o.Palaniyappan,
Deethaipatti, Rajakkapatti Village,
Dindigul East Taluk, Dindigul District.
2. Palani @ Palaniyappan
S/o.Palaniyappan,
Deethaipatti, Rajakkapatti Village,
Dindigul East Taluk, Dindigul District
3. Kuttiyappan,
S/o.Palaniyappan, Deethaipatti,
Rajakkapatti Village,
Dindigul East Taluk,
Dindigul District.
4. Arumugam,
S/o.Palaniyappan,
Deethaipatti, Rajakkapatti Village,
Dindigul East Taluk,
Dindigul District
5. Perumal,
S/o.Palaniyappan,
Deethaipatti, Rajakkapatti Village,
Dindigul East Taluk,
Dindigul District. ... Appellants/Appellants/Plaintiffs
1/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/09/2025 06:39:21 pm )
S.A.(MD)No.36 of 2018
Vs.
Irullappan (Died)
1. Ayyammal,
W/o.Irulappan, Deethaipatti,
Rajakkapatti Village,
Dindigul East Taluk,
Dindigul District.
2. Nagamuthu,
S/o.Ayyamperumal,
Deethaipatti,
Rajakkapatti Village,
Dindigul East Taluk,
Dindigul District.
3. Murugesan,
S/o.Palaniyappan,
Deethaipatti,
Rajakkapatti Village,
Dindigul East Taluk,
Dindigul District.
4. Periyakaalai
S/o.Nagamuthu,
Deethaipatti, Rajakkapatti Village,
Dindigul East Taluk,
Dindigul District.
5. Kesavan,
S/o.Periyakaalai,
Deethaipatti, Rajakkapatti Village,
Dindigul East Taluk, Dindigul District.
6. Thottan
S/o.Muthukkaruppan,
Deethaipatti, Rajakkapatti Village,
Dindigul East Taluk,
Dindigul District.
2/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/09/2025 06:39:21 pm )
S.A.(MD)No.36 of 2018
7. Chitamparam,
S/o.Irulappan,
Deethaipatti, Rajakkapatti Village,
Dindigul East Taluk,
Dindigul District.
8. Angammal,
W/o.Palaniyappan,
D/o.Irulappan, Deethaipatti,
Rajakkapatti Village,
Dindigul East Taluk,
Dindigul District.
9. Baadalakshmi
W/o.Ganesan
D/o.Irulappan, Deethaipatti,
Rajakkapatti Village,
Dindigul East Taluk,
Dindigul District. ... Respondents / Respondents / Plaintiffs
PRAYER : The Second Appeal filed under Section 100 C.P.C., to set
aside the judgment and decree dated 07.07.2017 made in A.S.No. 15 of
2015 on the file of Principal Sub-Court, Dindigul, confirming the
judgment and decree dated 19.09.2014 made in O.S.No.l25 of 2011 on
the file of 2nd Additional District Munsif Court, Dindigul, and to decreed,
the suit, with costs and thus render justice.
For Appellants : Mr.V.George Raja, Advocate
for M/s.Ajmal Associates
For Respondents : Mr.S.Sarvagan Prabhu, Advocate
for R1, R2, R3, R5 & R7 to R9
3/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/09/2025 06:39:21 pm )
S.A.(MD)No.36 of 2018
JUDGMENT
Heard.
2. This Second Appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs in O.S. No.
125 of 2011 on the file of the II Additional District Munsif, Dindigul,
aggrieved by the concurrent dismissal of their suit by the Trial Court as
well as the First Appellate Court in A.S. No. 15 of 2015 on the file of the
Principal Sub Court, Dindigul.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred to as
per their ranks before the trial Court.
4. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of this Second Appeal
are as follows:
The plaintiffs instituted a suit for partition, claiming that the suit
property, measuring 6 acres and 21 cents together with the right of
common usage of the well etc., originally belonged to their maternal
grandmother, Kaliammal. She died intestate, leaving behind her husband,
Chidambaram, her son, Irulappan (the 1st defendant), and her daughter,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/09/2025 06:39:21 pm )
Pechiammal, who was the mother of the plaintiffs. Upon the death of
Kaliammal, her husband Chidambaram enjoyed the property and
thereafter executed a will dated 15.03.1967 (Ex.A1), bequeathing the suit
property in equal shares to his children, namely the plaintiffs’ mother and
the 1st defendant. As the property continued to remain in the possession
of the 1st defendant and he refused to effect partition, the plaintiffs filed
the present suit seeking allotment of their half share.
5. The defendants denied that the property originally belonged to
Kaliammal. They contended that the suit property was the ancestral
property of Chidambaram. Upon the death of Chidambaram’s father,
Thandavan, Chidambaram and his only son, the 1st defendant, jointly
executed a sale deed dated 16.09.1974 (Ex. B2), conveying the property
to Ramasamy. Thereafter, the 2nd defendant purchased the property from
the legal heirs of Ramasamy under a sale deed dated 29.04.1982
(Ex. B3). Consequently, the 2nd defendant became the lawful owner, and
the plaintiffs were not entitled to any share or partition. Subsequently,
the 2nd defendant, along with the 1st defendant, alienated the property
under Ex. B4.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/09/2025 06:39:21 pm )
6. The Courts below concurrently held that the plaintiffs had not
proved that the suit property originally belonged to Kaliammal. Even in
the alleged Will (Ex. A1) executed by Chidambaram, it is recited that the
property was his ancestral property. Likewise, in Ex. B2, the recitals also
describe the suit property as ancestral in nature. Being ancestral,
Chidambaram and his son, the 1st defendant, held equal rights therein.
Under Mitakshara law, a son acquires by birth an interest equal to that of
his father in ancestral property, and such right is entirely independent of
the father. Consequently, Chidambaram, as Karta, together with his son,
jointly alienated the property in favour of Ramasamy under Ex. B2.
Therefore, although Chidambaram is stated to have executed a Will dated
15.03.1967, the property had already been disposed of during his
lifetime, leaving no estate to give effect to the testamentary disposition.
7. Accordingly, Chidambaram left behind no property capable of
partition among his children. Consequently, the plaintiffs’ claim, through
their mother, late Pechiammal, for a share in the suit property does not
arise.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/09/2025 06:39:21 pm )
8. In the grounds of appeal, it has been urged that the Courts below
ought to have at least granted a lesser relief of ¼ share to Pechiammal,
the daughter of Chidambaram, under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession
Act, since the property was ancestral.
9. It is true that, prior to the 2005 Amendment, daughters were not
recognized as coparceners. Nevertheless, under the proviso to Section 6
of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, where a Hindu male coparcener died
intestate leaving female relatives specified in Class I of the Schedule,
succession would take place under Section 8 and not by survivorship.
Therefore, it is correct that Pechiammal, as a female heir, would have
been entitled to a ¼ share. However, since Chidambaram, along with his
son, had already alienated the entire property during his lifetime, there
remained nothing to devolve upon his heirs. Hence, the appellants’ claim
is devoid of substance, amounting to no more than letters written on
water.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/09/2025 06:39:21 pm )
10. The plaintiffs also failed to establish the will (Ex. A1) in
accordance with the requirements of Section 63 of the Indian Succession
Act, 1925, and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The
appellants sought to rely on Section 90 of the Evidence Act, contending
that a Will more than 30 years old is presumed valid. This contention,
however, is untenable for two reasons: (i) the testator, having already
alienated the property in his lifetime, left no estate upon which the Will
could operate; and (ii) it is a well-settled principle that the presumption
under Section 90 does not extend to Wills, which must be proved strictly
in accordance with Section 63 of the Succession Act and Section 68 (or
Section 69) of the Evidence Act. The Supreme Court, in Ashutosh
Samanta (D) by LRs. & Ors. v. Smt. Ranjan Bala Dasi & Ors., Civil
Appeal No. 7775 of 2021 (decided on 14.03.2023), has recently
reiterated this position.
11. Thus, there is no error in the judgments of the Courts below.
At the time of admission, this Court framed the following substantial
questions of law:
“1. When Chidambaram is the son of one Thandavan
and Irulappan, namely, the first defendant, is the son of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/09/2025 06:39:21 pm )
Chidambaram, is not the lower appellate Court wrong in
assuming that the said Chidambaram and Irulappan are
brothers, and that the said Chidambaram is entitled to
only ½ share in the 6 acres 21 cents?
2. When the father of one Petchiyammal and the first
defendant sold only an extent of 2 acres and odd and
remaining land measuring about an extent of 4 acres and 20
cents is still available with the said Chidambaram, are not the
Courts below committed a serious error in dismissing the suit
for partition of the of the plaintiffs’ ¼ share in the suit
property?”
12. With regard to the first question, it is correct that the First
Appellate Court mistakenly recorded Chidambaram and Irulappan as
brothers, whereas, in fact, they were father and son. This relationship is
admitted by both parties, and Ex. B2 also records them as father and son.
However, neither the Trial Court nor the First Appellate Court proceeded
on the basis that Chidambaram held only a half share because they were
brothers. Rather, since Ex. B2 was executed in 1974, prior to the 2005
Amendment to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, the governing law
was that all male members acquired equal rights by birth in coparcenary
property. Accordingly, the First Appellate Court correctly held that
Chidambaram and his son each had equal shares.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/09/2025 06:39:21 pm )
13. With regard to the second question, the contention that only 2
acres and odd were sold and that 4 acres and 20 cents remained available
for partition is factually untenable. The records reveal that the plaintiffs
instituted the suit claiming a half share in the entire extent of 6 acres and
21 cents. Ex. B2 unequivocally establishes that Chidambaram and
Irulappan conveyed the whole extent of 6 acres and 21 cents to
Ramasamy. Thereafter, under Ex. B3, the 2nd defendant purchased the
entire extent from Ramasamy’s heirs. Therefore, there is no basis to say
that 2 acres and odd alone were sold and 4 acres and 20 cents remained.
14. Accordingly, the substantial questions of law are answered
against the appellants. The Second Appeal is devoid of merit and stands
dismissed. The judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court are
hereby affirmed. There shall be no order as to costs.
18.09.2025
Internet : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
NCC : Yes / No
LS
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/09/2025 06:39:21 pm )
To
1.The Principal Sub Judge,
Dindigul.
2.The 2nd Additional District Munsif,
Dindigul.
3.The Section Officer,
VR Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/09/2025 06:39:21 pm )
DR.A.D. MARIA CLETE,J.
LS
Pre-delivery Judgment made in
18.09.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/09/2025 06:39:21 pm )
