Madras High Court
Chandra vs Rajendran on 26 September, 2025
A . S . N O . 11 7 O F 2 0 1 9
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
JUDGMENT RESERVED ON : 26 / 06 / 2025
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : 26 / 09 / 2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL
APPEAL SUIT NO.117 OF 2019
1.Chandra
D/o. Late Madhaiyan
2.Rani
D/o. Late Madhaiyan
3.Jayanthi
D/o. Late Madhaiyan ... Appellants /
Plaintiffs
Vs.
1.Rajendran
S/o. Late Rajalingam
2.Murugan
S/o. Late Rajalingam
3.Somu
S/o. Late Rajalingam
4.Govindaraj
S/o. Late Rajalingam
5.Kundhiammal
W/o. Duraisamy
Page No.1 of 22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 06:41:23 pm )
A . S . N O . 11 7 O F 2 0 1 9
6.Kamala
W/o. Rajendran
7.Vijaya
W/o. Subburu
8.Manickammal
W/o. Ramasamy
9.Mani
S/o. Ayyandurai ... Respondents /
Defendants
PRAYER: First Appeal filed under Section 96 read with Order XLI Rule
1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 praying to set aside the Judgment
and Decree dated October 24, 2018 passed in O.S.No.221 of 2015 by the
III Additional District Court, Salem.
For Appellants : Ms.Zeenath Begum
For Respondents 1 to 8 : Mr.T.S.Vijayaraghavan
For Respondent-9 : Mr.K.V.Shanmuganathan
******
JUDGMENT
Feeling aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated October 24,
2018 passed in O.S.No.221 of 2015 by the 'III Additional District Court,
Salem' ['Trial Court' for brevity], the plaintiffs therein have filed this
Appeal Suit under Section 96 read with Order XLI Rule 1 of 'the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908' ['CPC' for short].
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 06:41:23 pm )
A . S . N O . 11 7 O F 2 0 1 9
2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be
referred to as per their array in the Original Suit.
PLAINTIFFS' CASE
3. Summa Iruppa Gounder had three children namely Rajalingam,
Madhaiyan and Manickammal. The plaintiffs are the daughters of
Madhaiyan. The defendants 1 to 7 are the sons and daughters of
Rajalingam. The 8th defendant is the said Manickammal. The plaintiffs and
the defendants 1 to 8 constitute a Hindu undivided joint family. The 9th
defendant is the illegal purchaser of a portion of the Suit Properties.
3.1. The Suit Properties are the undivided joint family properties of
the plaintiffs and the defendants 1 to 8. A portion of the Suit Properties
were originally purchased out of the joint family nucleus and income, in
the name of the Summa Iruppa Gounder through two registered Sale
Deeds, one dated January 20, 1947 and another November 30, 1959. From
and out of the income derived from the said properties, another portion of
the Suit Properties were purchased in the name of said Summa Iruppa
Gounder vide Sale Deed dated March 6, 1995.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 06:41:23 pm )
A . S . N O . 11 7 O F 2 0 1 9
3.2. Rajalingam passed away 15 years ago leaving behind the
defendants 1 to 7 as his legal heirs to succeed his estate. Madhaiyan
passed away 33 years ago leaving behind his wife - Lakshmi and the
plaintiffs, as his legal heirs to succeed his estate. After the demise of
Madhiayan, his wife - Lakshmi re-married and settled down with her
husband in Bombay.
3.3. Summa Iruppa Gounder possessed and enjoyed the Suit
Properties along with the plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 8, and passed away
intestate in 2000. After the demise of Summa Iruppa Gounder, the
plaintiffs have been demanding the defendants 1 to 8 to effect partition of
the Suit Properties and to allot their lawful share. However, the defendants
1 to 4 denied the plaintiffs’ share in the Suit Properties and informed them
that the Suit Properties were already alienated during 1995 in their favour
and in favour of the 9th defendant.
3.4. The plaintiffs then obtained certified copies of the documents
created in respect of the Suit Properties and came to know that without
any legal sanction or right, Summa Iruppa Gounder had created Sale Deed
dated March 6, 1995 in respect of a portion of the Suit Properties in favour
of the 9th defendant as well as registered Gift Settlement Deed dated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 06:41:23 pm )
A . S . N O . 11 7 O F 2 0 1 9
December 29, 1995 in favour of the defendants 1 to 4 and their yet another
brother Annadurai in respect of a portion of the Suit Properties. The said
Annathurai passed away six years ago. At the time of execution of Gift
Settlement Deed, the defendants 3, 4 and the said Annathurai were minors
and their father - Rajalingam represented them as their guardian.
According to the plaintiffs, Summa Iruppa Gounder had no individual
right or title over the Suit Properties to execute those documents as the
Suit Properties were purchased in his name as Kartha of the joint family
and out of the joint family income. Therefore, the Suit Properties are
absolutely undivided joint family properties and the plaintiffs who are the
children of deceased - Madhaiyan, are entitled for share in the Suit
Properties. Hence, the plaintiffs have come forward with the present Suit
for declaration that the documents executed by Summa Iruppa Gounder
are null and void, and for partition and separate possession and also for
permanent injunction.
DEFENDANTS' CASE
4. The third defendant filed written statement denying the
allegations made by the plaintiff in the plaint. The same was adopted by
the Defendant Nos.2 and 4 to 8. The 9th defendant remained ex-parte
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 06:41:23 pm )
A . S . N O . 11 7 O F 2 0 1 9
before the Trial Court. The relationship between the parties is admitted. It
is denied that the plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 8 constituted a Hindu
undivided joint family.
4.1. According to the defendants, the Suit Properties are the self-
acquired property of Summa Iruppa Gounder, who was engaged in Cattle
Feed Business. During his lifetime, he sold a portion of the Suit Properties
to the 9th defendant and executed a registered Gift Settlement Deed
attested by the 8th defendant in favour of Defendant Nos.1 to 4 and their
late brother – Annathurai. Possession was handed over and the Gift was
acted upon. Neither the plaintiffs nor their father – Madhaiyan was in joint
possession of Suit Properties at any of time. Stating so, they sought to
dismiss the Suit.
REPLY STATEMENT
5. During trial, the defendants marked Certified copy of Will dated
November 30, 1982 (Ex-B.2) allegedly executed by Summa Iruppa
Gounder in favour of Defendant Nos.1 to 4 and any other male heirs. In
response, the second plaintiff filed reply statement questioning the
genuineness and validity of the Will, on December 6, 2017 after obtaining
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 06:41:23 pm )
A . S . N O . 11 7 O F 2 0 1 9
leave from Trial Court under Order VIII Rule 9 of CPC vide Order dated
January 17, 2018 passed in I.A.No.671 of 2017. The first and third
plaintiffs adopted the reply statement.
TRIAL COURT
6. Based on the pleadings made before trial, the Trial Court framed
the following issues:
'1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration as
the Sale Deed dated March 6, 1995 as null and void?
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration as
the Gift Settlement Deed dated December 29, 1995 as null and
void?
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for partition as prayed for?
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as
prayed for?
5. Whether the Suit Properties are self acquired properties of
Summa Iruppa Gounder?
6. To what other relief?'
7. At trial, on the side of the plaintiffs, second plaintiff was
examined as P.W.1, first plaintiff was examined as P.W.2 and two
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 06:41:23 pm )
A . S . N O . 11 7 O F 2 0 1 9
independent witnesses were examined as P.W.3 and P.W.4, and Ex-A.1 to
Ex-A.10 were marked. On the side of the defendants, third defendant was
examined as D.W.1, one Ganesan was examined as D.W.2 and Ex-B.1 and
Ex-B.2 were marked. To be noted, the evidence of P.W.3 was ' scrapped ',
as P.W.3 did not appear for cross-examination after merely filing chief-
affidavit, vide Order dated July 20, 2017 made in I.A.No.434 of 2017.
8. After full-fledged trial, the Trial Court concluded that the Suit
Properties are self-acquired properties of Summa Iruppa Gounder and the
Sale Deed qua Suit Item No.1 and Gift Settlement Deed qua Suit Item
No.2 executed by him are valid and binding on the plaintiffs. As regards
Suit Item No.3, though Ex-A.3 – Patta stands in the name of Summa
Iruppa Gounder, the plaintiffs failed to trace his title by adducing Title
Deed. Resultantly, the Trial Court dismissed the Suit in its entirety.
9. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiffs have preferred this First Appeal
under Section 96 read with Order XLI Rule 1 of the CPC.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 06:41:23 pm )
A . S . N O . 11 7 O F 2 0 1 9
ARGUMENTS:
10. Ms.Zeenath Begum, learned Counsel for the appellants /
plaintiffs would argue that it is the defendants who contended that the Suit
Properties are self-acquired properties of Summa Iruppa Gounder and
hence, the burden of proof to prove the same lies upon the defendants. The
Trial Court wrongly imposed the burden of proof on the plaintiffs.
10.1. She would further argue that Ex-A.4 – Sale Deed in favour of 9 th
defendant was falsely created by the defendants with a view to defeat and
defraud by the plaintiffs’ legitimate rights. That is the reason why the 9th
defendant did not appear before the Trial Court to contest the case and
why the defendants did not produce the original Sale Deed. The Trial
Court failed to consider the said aspect. Further, Ex-B.1 – Gift Settlement
Deed is not a genuine one. Summa Iruppa Gounder is a signatory but only
a thumb impression is found in Ex-B.1. Further, at the time of alleged
execution of Ex-B.1, Summa Iruppa Gounder was age old. Hence, Ex-B.1
is surrounded by suspicious circumstances. The defendants failed to
remove the clouds and prove Ex-B.1. Even while assuming that Ex-A.4 -
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 06:41:23 pm )
A . S . N O . 11 7 O F 2 0 1 9
Sale Deed and Ex-B.1 – Gift Settlement Deed are true, genuine and valid,
Summa Iruppa Gounder did not have any right to execute the aforesaid
documents in respect of Suit Properties.
10.2. As regards Suit Item No.3, she would submit that the case of the
plaintiffs is that the Suit Properties are joint family properties. Ex-A.3 –
Patta stands in the name of Summa Iruppa Gounder, which prima facie
proves that Suit Item No.3 stands in the name of Summa Iruppa Gounder.
The defendants did not deny the same. In these circumstances, the Trial
Court ought not to have dismissed the Suit qua Suit Item No.3 for lack of
Title Deed. The Trial Court failed to consider the above facts in the right
perspective and erroneously dismissed the Suit. Accordingly, she would
pray to allow the appeal and set aside the Judgment and Decree of the
Trial Court.
11. On the other hand, Mr.T.S.Vijayaraghavan, learned Counsel for
the respondents 1 to 8 / defendants 1 to 8 would argue that Suit Item No.1
was purchased by Summa Iruppa Gounder vide Ex-A.1 – Sale Deed in the
year 1947. The house site comprised in Item No.2 of Suit Properties was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 06:41:23 pm )
A . S . N O . 11 7 O F 2 0 1 9
purchased by him vide Ex-A.2 – Sale Deed in 1959. The other property in
Suit Item No.2 was purchased by him vide Sale Deed dated March 6, 1995
under Document No.397 of 1995. The said fact was admitted by the
plaintiffs in their plaint pleadings. Admission made in the pleadings is a
judicial admission. The plaintiffs failed to prove the existence of joint
family, any joint family property or surplus income therefrom prior to the
aforementioned Sale Deeds. On the other hand, the defendants established
that the Suit Properties are self-acquired properties of Summa Iruppa
Gounder with the support of Ex-A.1 to Ex-A.3 and the aforesaid
admission made by the plaintiffs.
11.1. Further, he would contend that the plaintiffs did not deny the
execution of Ex-A.5 – Gift Settlement Deed. However, the defendants
proved Ex-A.5 by examining one of its attestor namely Ganesan, as
D.W.2. Further, Ex-A.4 – Sale Deed executed in favour of 9th defendant
and Ex-A.5 – Gift Settlement Deed, both were executed in 1995 and the
Suit has been filed on March 30, 2015. Hence, the relief of declaration that
Ex-A.4 and Ex-A.5 are null and void, is barred by limitation. The Trial
Court after considering the evidence available on record, rightly dismissed
the Suit. There is no need to interfere with the Judgment and Decree of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 06:41:23 pm )
A . S . N O . 11 7 O F 2 0 1 9
Trial Court. Accordingly, he would pray to dismiss the Appeal Suit and
confirm the Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court.
11.2. He would rely on the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Smt. Uma Devi -vs- Sri.Anand Kumar, reported in 2025 (4) SCR 521 :
2025 INSC 434 in support of his contentions.
12. Mr.K.V.Shanmuganathan, learned Counsel for the Respondent
No.9 / Defendant No.9 would adopt the arguments advanced by
Mr.T.S.Vijayaraghavan.
DISCUSSION:
13. Heard on either side. Perused the evidence available on record.
The following points arise for consideration in this Appeal Suit:
(i) Whether the Suit Properties are joint family properties or self-
acquired properties of Summa Iruppa Gounder ?
(ii) Whether Ex-A.4 – Sale Deed and Ex-A.5 = Ex-B.1 – Gift
Settlement Deed are true, valid and binding on the plaintiffs ?
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 06:41:23 pm )
A . S . N O . 11 7 O F 2 0 1 9
(iii) Whether the relief of declaration sought for by the plaintiff is barred
by limitation ?
(iv) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of partition in respect
of Suit Properties ?
14. Summa Iruppa Gounder had three children, namely Rajalingam,
Madhaiyan and Manickammal (8th defendant). Rajalingam passed away
leaving behind his children, namely defendants 1 to 7 and late Annathurai.
The plaintiffs are the daughters of Madhaiyan as could be seen from Ex-
A.9 – Legal Heir Certificate. Madhaiyan passed away on January 13, 1980
as evident from Ex-A.8 – Death Certificate. After the demise of
Madhaiyan, his wife remarried and settled down in Bombay. Summa
Iruppa Gounder passed away in September 20, 2000 and his death
certificate is marked as Ex-A.10. Suit Item Nos. 1 and 2 were purchased
by Summa Iruppa Gounder in his name vide the Sale Deeds in Ex-A.1, Ex-
A.2 and another Sale Deed dated March 6, 1995 (not marked). There is no
dispute with the above facts.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 06:41:23 pm )
A . S . N O . 11 7 O F 2 0 1 9
Point No.(i)
15. Case of the plaintiffs is that Summa Iruppa Gounder purchased
Suit Item Nos.1 and 2 vide Exs-A.1 & A.2 – Sale Deeds and the Sale Deed
dated March 6, 1995, from and out of the joint family nucleus and
properties in his capacity as Kartha of the joint family. If it is so, the
burden is upon the plaintiffs to prove the existence of joint family
properties, income therefrom and surplus therein. In this case, there is no
evidence to show the existence of any joint family property prior to the
aforesaid Sale Deeds. Even in Ex-A.1 and Ex-A.2 – Sale Deeds, there is
no reference as to the existence of any joint family property. The plaintiffs
have failed to discharge their initial burden. In these circumstances, Suit
Item Nos.1 and 2 can only be considered as self-acquired properties of
Summa Iruppa Gounder.
16. Qua Suit Item No.3, the plaintiffs contend that it is a joint
family property. Suit Item No.3 is an extent of 27 Cents. Even while
assuming that Suit Item No.3 is joint family property, there is no evidence
of income much less surplus income therefrom. While so, as Ex-A.3 –
Patta in respect of Suit Item No.3 is a Separate Patta standing in the name
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 06:41:23 pm )
A . S . N O . 11 7 O F 2 0 1 9
of Summa Iruppa Gounder, this Court is of the view that Suit Item No.3 as
well is a self-acquired property of Summa Iruppa Gounder.
17. Thus, all the Suit Properties are self-acquired and separate
properties of Summa Iruppa Gounder. Hence, the findings of the Trial
Court qua the nature of Suit Properties (in Paragraph No.12 of its
Judgment) are right and warrants no interference by this Court. Point
No.(i) is answered accordingly in favour of defendants and against the
plaintiffs.
Point No.(ii)
18. Summa Iruppa Gounder executed Ex-A.4 – registered Sale Deed
in favour of 9th defendant as well as Ex-A.5 – Gift Settlement Deed in
favour of the defendants 1 to 4 and their late brother – Annathurai. Though
the learned Counsel for the appellants / plaintiffs would contend that Ex-
A.4 and Ex-A.5 are fabricated and surrounded by suspicious
circumstances, there are no pleadings for the same. Any contention
without pleadings is not of much use. The plaintiffs did not specifically
deny the execution of Ex-A.4 and Ex-A.5 by Summa Iruppa Gounder in
their pleadings; their case is that the Suit Properties being joint family
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 06:41:23 pm )
A . S . N O . 11 7 O F 2 0 1 9
properties, Summa Iruppa Gounder does not have any right to alienate
them. In view of the findings of this Court under Point No.(i), Summa
Iruppa Gounder can dispose of the Suit Properties as per his own wish and
will. In other words, the Suit Properties being his separate and self-
acquired properties, he can alienate them as he desires and the plaintiffs
cannot question the same.
19. The further case of the plaintiffs is that Ex-A.4 and Ex-A.5 are
sham and nominal documents. If it is so, they have to prove the same
besides proving their joint possession. But the plaintiffs have failed to
prove that Ex-A.4 is sham and nominal document and were not acted
upon. There is no evidence available on record to show that the plaintiffs
are in joint possession and enjoyment of the Suit Item No.1 with the
defendants. Further, whether the 9th defendant is contesting the Suit or not
is not of much significance. Regardless of the same, the plaintiffs must
prima facie prove their case (that Ex-A.4 is sham and nominal).
20. As regards Ex-A.5 = Ex-B.1 – Gift Settlement Deed, though the
plaintiffs have not denied the execution of the same, the defendants have
examined one of the attestor of Ex-A.5 - Ganesan as D.W.2. The 8th
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 06:41:23 pm )
A . S . N O . 11 7 O F 2 0 1 9
defendant is also an witness to Ex-A.5. Further, the defendants let in the
original of the Gift Settlement Deed on April 9, 2018 when the plaintiffs
sought to send the Gift Settlement Deed for expert opinion, and the
plaintiffs as well perused the same by filing a memo. So the defendants
have let in the original Gift Settlement Deed as well. Hence, Ex-A.5 –
Gift Settlement Deed is proved as per Section 123 of the Transfer of
Property Act, 1882 read with Section 68 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
Thus, Ex-A.4 and Ex-A.5 = Ex-B.1 are true, valid and binding on the
plaintiffs. Point No.(ii) is answered accordingly in favour of defendants
and against the plaintiffs.
Point No.(iii)
21. The defendants contend that the relief of declaration is barred by
limitation. Reliance was made on Uma Devi’s Case (cited supra), wherein
original owner passed away leaving behind four sons. In that case, it was
proved that an oral partition was effected in 1968 among the said four sons
of the original owner, and revenue records were mutated pursuant to oral
partition. One of the son had sold the property allotted to him in 1978
itself. Decades later, in the year 2023, one of the grandson of the original
owner filed a Suit alleging that the family owned ancestral and joint
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 06:41:23 pm )
A . S . N O . 11 7 O F 2 0 1 9
family properties, that their legitimate shares therein are denied and
accordingly, sought for partition. In this factual matrix, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court held that the Suit is barred by limitation. Partition among
the sons after the demise of the father and the huge time lapse between the
sale and the filing of the Suit appears to be the crucial factors for the
finding of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The facts of the present case is
deviant from Uma Devi’s Case. In this case, the father of the plaintiffs
namely Madhaiyan passed away on January 13, 1980 and the mother of
the plaintiffs re-married and settled in Bombay. The sale and the gift were
made thereafter in the year 1995. In these circumstances, it is highly
probable and also natural that the plaintiffs were less connected with the
Suit Properties, especially given the restricted position of women in
property-related matters in the past. Hence, it is only just and proper that
limitation is reckoned from the date of their knowledge about the
transactions.
22. The case of the plaintiffs is that Ex-A.4 and Ex-A.5 came to
their knowledge only in December 2012, when the plaintiffs sought for
partition from the defendants 1 to 4, and the Suit has been filed in March
2015. There is no huge time lapse in this case like in the case of Uma
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 06:41:23 pm )
A . S . N O . 11 7 O F 2 0 1 9
Devi’s Case. The declaration Suit has been filed well within time as per
Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963 which says for any declaration other
than relating to forgery of an instrument and validity of adoption, the
limitation clock begins to tick when the right to sue first accrues. In this
case, right to sue first accrued only after the demise of Summa Iruppa
Gounder when the plaintiffs’ demand for partition was denied i.e., in
December 2012. Hence, the relief of declaration is not barred by
limitation. Point No.(iii) is answered accordingly in favour of plaintiffs
and against the defendants.
Point No.(iv)
23. As regards Suit Item Nos.1 and 2, as held under Point Nos.(i)
and (ii), they are the separate and self-acquired properties of Summa
Iruppa Gounder and have been alienated by him. Hence, the plaintiffs are
not entitled to the relief of declaration and partition in respect of Suit Item
Nos.1 and 2. The Trial Court is right in denying the relief of declaration
and partition qua Suit Item Nos.1 and 2.
24. As regards Suit Item No.3, the defendants case is that Summa
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 06:41:23 pm )
A . S . N O . 11 7 O F 2 0 1 9
Iruppa Gounder executed Ex-B.2 – registered Will in respect of Suit Item
No.3 in favour of the defendants 1 to 4. The original of Ex-B.2- Will has
been produced before the Trial Court on March 19, 2018. The plaintiffs
denied the execution of Ex-B.2 – Will in their reply statement. However,
the defendants did not examine any attesting witness. They failed to prove
Ex-B.2 – Will as per Section 63 of Indian Succession Act, 1925 read with
Section 68 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The Trial Court denied the relief
of partition qua Suit Item No.3 on the ground that the plaintiffs failed to
adduce Title Deed(s). The Trial Court is not justifiable in its aforesaid
finding. When Ex-A.3 – Separate Patta in respect of Suit Item No.3 stands
in the name of Summa Iruppa Gounder and when the defendants did not
deny that Suit Item No.3 belongs to Summa Iruppa Gounder, the Trial
Court ought not to have held so. Though the defendants filed Ex-B.2 –
Will, they did not prove the Will as per Section 63 of Indian Succession
Act, 1925 read with Section 68 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 as stated
supra. Succession opened upon the demise of Summa Iruppa Gounder.
Hence, the plaintiffs being the daughters of predeceased son – Madhaiyan,
are the Class-I legal heirs of Summa Iruppa Gounder under Section 8 of
the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and thus, entitled to 1/3 share in Suit Item
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 06:41:23 pm )
A . S . N O . 11 7 O F 2 0 1 9
No.3 upon the demise of Summa Iruppa Gounder. Therefore, the Trial
Court ought to have decreed the Suit qua Suit Item No.3. Point No.(iv) is
answered partly in favour of plaintiffs and partly in favour of the
defendants.
CONCLUSION:
25. In view of the foregoing narrative, the Appeal Suit is partly
allowed. The Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court qua Suit Item Nos.1
and 2 is confirmed, and set aside qua Suit Item No.3. The plaintiffs are
together entitled to 1/3 share in Item No.(3) of the Suit Properties. To that
effect, a Preliminary Decree is passed in favour of the plaintiffs in respect
of Suit Item No.3 alone. Considering the relationship between the parties
and the nature of the Suit, there shall be no order as to costs.
26 / 09 / 2025
Index : Yes / No
Speaking Order : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
TK/lbm
R. SAKTHIVEL, J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 06:41:23 pm )
A . S . N O . 11 7 O F 2 0 1 9
TK/lbm
To
The III Additional District Judge
Salem.
PRE-DELIVERY JUDGMENT MADE IN
APPEAL SUIT NO.117 OF 2019
26 / 09 / 2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 06:41:23 pm )
