Madras High Court
Joseph Paulraj vs Mahalakshmi on 26 September, 2025
S.A.(MD)No.213 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on : 20.08.2025
Pronounced on : 26.09.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE A.D. MARIA CLETE
S.A.(MD)No.213 of 2018
and
C.M.P.(MD)No.5514 of 2018 & 10170 of 2022
Joseph Paulraj,
S/o.Loorthusamy,
Bishop House, Melappudur,
Trichy Corporation. ... Appellant/3rd Appellant /3rd Defendant
Vs.
1. Mahalakshmi
W/o. Sivasubramani
Ganapathypalayam,
Thanthoni Village,
Karur District. .... 1st respondent /1st respondent/Plaintiff
2. Selvam
S/o. Velusamy,
Attuvampatty,
Villpatti Village, Vilpatti Post,
Kodaikanal Taluk,
Dindigul District
3. Chellamuthu
S/o. Vaiyapur Gounder,
S. Vellalapatty,
Moolakattanoor, Karur Taluk,
Karur District. ...Respondents 2&3/Appellants 1&2/Defendants 1 &2
1/13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 04:35:26 pm )
S.A.(MD)No.213 of 2018
4. Julius Karunakaran
S/o. Late R. Christian,
New D.No.8, Kamarajar Nagar, 4th Street,
Soolaimedu, Chennai - 94.
5. Louis Joseph (Died)
S/o. Anthonysamy,
No.621 801, Pavuls,
Sri. Mushnan Road,
Andimadam, Perambalur District
6. Isac Mohanlal,
S/o. Dr. Isac Thas,
No.1/216 Meenakshi Mission Colony,
Rajakambeeram, Odaikkadu Post,
Madurai North 623 107.
7. Francis
S/o. Late Savurimuthu,
No.32/42, Balaji Avenue,
Sanjay Gandhi Nagar, Melsinthanery,
Trichy - 620 002.
8. Joshpine Mary Grace
W/o. 57/64, Anbu Nagar, 4th Cross Fort,
Trichy -12.
9. Carolin Eucharistha
W/o. Soundarajan,
No.25/10, Puliyur 1st Santhu,
Kodampakkam, Trustpuram
2nd Main Road,
Chennai - 600 024. ... Respondents 4 to 9/Respondents 4 to 9/
Defendants 4 to 9
10. Reetamary,
2/13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 04:35:26 pm )
S.A.(MD)No.213 of 2018
W/o.Late.Louis Joseph,
No.621 801, Pavuls,
Sri. Mushnan Road, Andimadam,
Perambalur District.
11. Jein Pavuline,
D/o.Late.Louis Joseph,
No.621 801, Pavuls,
Sri. Mushnan Road, Andimadam,
Perambalur District.
12. Albin Paul,
S/o.Late.Louis Joseph,
No.621 801, Pavuls,
Sri. Mushnan Road,
Andimadam,
Perambalur District. ... Respondents 10 to 12/
LRs of deceased 5th Respondent
(Respondents 10 to 12 are brought on record as LRs of the deceased
8th Respondent vide court order dated 07.02.2025 made in
CMP(MD) Nos.9026,9027 and 9030 of 2024 in
SA(MD)No.213 of 2018 by KKRKJ.)
PRAYER in SA: The Second Appeal filed under Section 100 C.P.C.,
against the Judgment and Decree dated 03.02.2018 made in A.S.No.37 of
2015 on the file of Additional District Court (Fast Track Court) Palani
confirming the judgment and decree dated 06.06.2015 made in O.S.No.
201 of 2004 on the file of the Sub Court, Palani.
PRAYER in CMP(MD)No.5514 of 2018:
3/13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 04:35:26 pm )
S.A.(MD)No.213 of 2018
To grant an order of Interim Stay of all further proceedings
pursuant to the Judgment and Decree dated 03.02.2018 made in A.S.No.
37 of 2015 on the file of Additional District Court (Fast Track Court)
Palani confirming the judgment and decree dated 06.06.2015 made in
O.S.No.201 of 2004 on the file of the Sub Court, Palani.
PRAYER in CMP(MD)No.10170 of 2022 :
To Vacate the Interim Stay granted by this Honourable Court in
C.M.P. (MD). No. 5514 of 2018 in S.A. (MD). No. 213 of 2018 dated
29.06.2018 before this Honourable Court and thus render justice.
APPEARANCE OF PARTIES:
For Appellant : Mr.S.Meenakshi Sundaram, Senior Counsel
For Mr.G.Sridharan, Advocate
For Respondents : Mr.K.Balasundaram, Senior Counsel
For Mr.G.Gomathi Sankar for R1
: Mr.H.Thayumanasamy, Advocate
Mr.S.Sivasamy, Advocate for R6
: Mr.C.Sankar Prakash, Advocate for R10 to R12
JUDGMENT
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 04:35:26 pm )
Heard.
2. This Second Appeal is filed by the third defendant under Section
100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging the judgment and
decree dated 03.02.2018 passed in A.S. No. 37 of 2015 by the Additional
District (Fast Track) and Sessions Judge, Pazhani. By the impugned
judgment, the First Appellate Court affirmed the decree dated 06.06.2015
passed in O.S. No. 201 of 2004 by the Subordinate Judge, Pazhani,
whereby the plaintiff’s suit was decreed and a preliminary decree for
partition was granted.
3. For convenience, the parties will be referred to by their ranks as
in the trial court.
4. The plaintiff instituted the suit seeking partition and a
preliminary decree concerning the suit property, asserting her title based
on a lineage traced from one Mukka Reddiar. The defendants, however,
contested her claim and asserted their own title through Jothi
Nageswaran.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 04:35:26 pm )
5. It is an undisputed fact that the suit property, along with other
lands in the village, was originally owned by Raja Chidambaram
Reddiar. By a settlement deed dated 05.04.1960, he transferred the
property in favour of Mukka Reddiar. Upon the death of Mukka Reddiar,
his children, Selvarani and Chandrasekaran, appointed Dr. Devadoss as
their power of attorney agent. Acting under this authority, the said power
agent executed a sale deed dated 25.01.1997 (Ex A1) in favour of
Vasantha, the plaintiff’s sister. On the same day, Vasantha conveyed her
undivided half share in the suit property to the plaintiff under Exhibit A2.
Both documents were duly registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar,
Parassala, Kerala.
6. The defendants primarily challenged the plaintiff’s title on two
grounds: first, that the settlement deed dated 05.04.1960 executed in
favour of Mukka Reddiar was sham and nominal; and second, that
Exhibit A2, though registered at Parassala in Kerala, was void as the
property in question was situated outside the territorial jurisdiction of the
said Sub-Registrar.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 04:35:26 pm )
7. The defendants contended that Raja Chidambaram Reddiar had
executed a will dated 05.10.1986—just two days prior to his death—
bequeathing the suit property to his maternal grandson, Jothi
Nageswaran. Pursuant to the will, Jothi Nageswaran, along with his
mother, conveyed the property to one Vasanthi on 06.08.1991.
Thereafter, Vasanthi transferred the property to the first defendant on
27.09.1991, who in turn dealt with the property in favour of the other
defendants.
8. At the time of admitting the Second Appeal on 29.06.2018, this
Court framed the following substantial questions of law for
consideration, which are extracted verbatim below:
1. Whether Ex.A1 and A2 documents registered at Parasala,
Kerala on 25.01.1997 are valid in the eye of law, in view of
fraudulent inclusion of certain properties in Kerala without any
title?
2. When Ex.B15 to B18 court proceedings clearly establish that
the suit properties do not belong to the vendor of the plaintiff,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 04:35:26 pm )
whether the courts below were right in granting a decree for
partition to the joint purchase?
3. Whether the courts below were right in holding that Ex.B15
to B18 judgment and decree will not bind the plaintiff, since the
plaintiff was not a party to the said proceedings when the plaintiff’s
vendor was a party to the said proceedings?
4. When the defendants have purchased the suit property in
the year 1991, whether the suit filed in the year 2004 for partition is
not barred by limitation?
9. The defendants contended that Exhibits A1 and A2 are void, as
they were registered outside the territorial jurisdiction where the suit
property is situated. It is true that divergent judicial opinions have
existed on this issue. However, the settled legal position is that where a
document pertains to properties located in different registration
jurisdictions, it may validly be registered in either jurisdiction. Mere
registration outside the territorial limits does not ipso facto render the
document void—unless it is established that the registration was tainted
by fraud.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 04:35:26 pm )
10. In the present case, the defendants have failed to establish that
the inclusion of the property situated in Kerala was fictitious or
fraudulent. The registering authority was satisfied as to the existence of
the Kerala property and accordingly proceeded with the registration. In
the absence of cogent evidence demonstrating fraud or collusion, the
registration cannot be invalidated.
11. It is also pertinent to note that the executant of Exhibit A2 —
namely, the mother of the first defendant—having conveyed the property
to the plaintiff, cannot now turn around to question its validity. Reliance
is placed on the judgment of this Court in Gopi v. Haris David, 2011 (1)
CTC 694, wherein it was held that the mere inclusion of a property, in
the absence of fraudulent intent, does not render the registration void.
This principle was reaffirmed in Lawrance (died) v. Karunakaran, S.A.
No. 88 of 2003, decided on 10.09.2018. Accordingly, Exhibits A1 and
A2 are held to be valid and not void.
12. The defendants relied upon Exhibits B15 to B18—being the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 04:35:26 pm )
judgments rendered in O.S. No. 241 of 1996 and A.S. No. 41 of 1999—
to contend that the plaintiff’s claim is barred. The suit under Ex B15 was
filed by purchasers of the suit property therein from the power agent of
Selvarani and Chandrasekaran, against third parties seeking a decree for
bare injunction. Both the trial court and the appellate court dismissed the
suit and the appeal.
13. However, it is significant to note that the plaintiff in the
present suit was not a party to the earlier proceedings. It is well settled
that a decree passed in a civil suit binds only the parties to the litigation,
their legal representatives, and persons claiming under them. It does not
operate against strangers to the proceedings. The plaintiff’s purchase
under Exhibit A2 is an independent transaction, unconnected to the
earlier litigation. Accordingly, Exhibits B15 to B18 constitute judgments
in personam, not in rem, and therefore do not bind the plaintiff.
14. The plaintiff purchased the suit property under Exhibit A2,
dated 25.01.1997. At the time of purchase, the mother of the first
defendant—whom the plaintiff derived title—was in possession of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 04:35:26 pm )
property, and such possession enured to the benefit of the plaintiff. It was
only in the year 2001, pursuant to Exhibit B5, that the first defendant
began asserting hostile and adverse rights against the plaintiff. The
present suit for partition was instituted within three years from the date
of such hostile assertion. Accordingly, the suit is not barred by limitation.
15. All the substantial questions of law are answered in favour of
the plaintiff/first respondent. Consequently, the judgments and decrees of
the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court are hereby affirmed.
Accordingly, this Second Appeal is dismissed, with costs awarded in
favour of the first respondent. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
petitions are closed.
26.09.2025
NCC : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
LS
To
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 04:35:26 pm )
1.The Additional District Court (Fast Track Court)
Palani.
2.The Sub Court,
Palani.
3.The Section Officer,
VR Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 04:35:26 pm )
DR.A.D. MARIA CLETE,J.
LS
Pre-delivery Judgment made in
26.09.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 04:35:26 pm )
