Madras High Court

Munusamy vs Mallika on 26 September, 2025

                                                                                          A.S.No.361 of 2015

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                         RESERVED ON                        :10.09.2025

                                         PRONOUNCED ON                     :26.09.2025

                                                           CORAM:

                                   THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR

                                                   A.S.No.361 of 2015

                            and CMP.Nos.4751 of 2022, CMP.Nos.15005 and 15007 of 2025

                     1.Munusamy
                     2.M.Annamalai
                     3.M.Muniraj
                                                                                           ... Appellants

                                                                vs.

                     1.Mallika
                     2.Malarkodi
                     3.Srikandan
                     4.Raji (died)
                     5.Chinnathai
                     6.Poongkodi
                                                                                          ... Respondents
                     (R4 (died), without any legal heirs is recorded, vide
                     order of Court dated 23.01.2025 made in
                     A.S.No.361 of 2015 and CMP.No.4751 of 2022)

                     PRAYER: First Appeal is filed under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure
                     Code, against the judgment and decree dated 24.09.2014 passed in
                     O.S.No.98 of 2010 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Krishnagiri.



                     1/26




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis              ( Uploaded on: 06/10/2025 08:51:49 pm )
                                                                                       A.S.No.361 of 2015

                                  For Appellants         : Mr.V.Nicholas

                                  For Respondents : Mr.C.Jagadish for R1 to R3
                                                    Mr.B.Gnanavinodhan for R5 and R6
                                                    R4-died


                                                  JUDGMENT

The defendants 1 to 3 are the appellants. The respondents 1 to

3 filed a suit for partition claiming ½ share in the suit properties. The trial

Court decreed the suit granting preliminary decree for 1/5th share in respect

of item Nos.1 to 4, 8 to 14 in 'A' schedule, entire 'B' schedule and item No.1

of 'C' schedule. The trial Court has granted permanent injunction

restraining the defendants from alienating or encumbering the above

mentioned items till the partition by metes and bounds. Aggrieved by the

said judgment and decree, the defendants 1 to 3 have come by way of this

appeal.

2. According to the respondents 1 to 3/plaintiffs, the first

plaintiff is the wife of one late Duraisamy, the plaintiffs 2 and 3 are children

of said Duraisamy. The first defendant is brother of Duraisamy. The

defendants 2 and 3 are sons of first defendant. The defendants 4 and 5 are

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/10/2025 08:51:49 pm )

sisters of late Duraisamy and first defendant Munusamy. The 6th defendant

is the daughter of yet another sister Nallammal. The above mentioned late

Duraisamy, the first defendant Munusamy, the defendants 4 and 5 and

mother of 6th defendant Nallammal were children of one Pulichari

Nachiappan. It is stated that he died in the year 1963 and his wife

Muniammal died on 10.04.1990. The first plaintiff's husband Duraisamy

died on 11.07.1985. It was claimed by the plaintiff that the suit 'A' schedule

properties were ancestral properties. The suit 'B' schedule property was

purchased out of joint family funds in the name of defendants 2 and 3 and

hence it was also available for partition. The suit 'C' schedule properties

were jointly purchased by first plaintiff's husband Duraisamy and first

defendant Munusamy and hence the same shall also be treated as joint

family properties available for partition. On these pleadings, the plaintiffs

sought for ½ share in the subject property.

3. The appellants/defendants 1 to 3 filed a written statement

and denied the allegation in the plaint that family had ancestral properties.

It was the specific case of the defendants 1 to 3 that father of Duraisamy and

Munusamy viz., Pulichari Nachiappan did not have any ancestral

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/10/2025 08:51:49 pm )

properties. He purchased item 8 of 'A' schedule properties and entire 'B'

schedule property out of his own earnings under sale deeds dated

05.07.1945 and 22.07.1959. It was also stated that after death of

Nachiappan, there was oral partition in the year 1975 between Duraisamy

and Munusamy and northern portion in the above mentioned property was

allotted to the share of Duraisamy and southern portion was allotted to the

share of Munusamy. It was further claimed by the defendants 1 to 3 that

one Chinna Gounder, father of Nachiappan's first wife executed a gift deed

on 03.05.1949 settling items 6 and 7 of 'A' schedule properties in favour of

first defendant Munusamy and one Vaguthan @ Annamalai. Later under

Ex.B4, dated 09.09.1986, the first defendant purchased share of the above

said Vaguthan @ Annamalai. It was also further claimed that out of his

own earnings, the first defendant purchased item Nos.3,4,5, 9 to 18. It was

also stated that the first defendant and one Ramamoorthy purchased item

No.1 of 'C' schedule under sale deeds dated 14.12.1978, 09.11.1982 later the

share of Ramamoorthy was purchased by first defendant under sale deed on

15.09.1993. Therefore, the first defendant sought for dismissal of the suit in

respect of all the items except item 8 of 'A' and 'B' schedule.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/10/2025 08:51:49 pm )

4. The defendants 4 to 6 filed separate written statement

claiming 1/5th share each in item 8 of 'A' schedule and 'B' schedule

properties. They also claimed that in the event of Court coming to the

conclusion that other properties were purchased out of joint family funds,

they were entitled to 1/5th share each in other items also.

5. Based on the said pleadings of the parties, the trial Court

framed the following issues:

(1) Whether the suit schedule properties are ancestral

properties of the parties?

(2). Whether the suit B schedule properties purchased out of

the income derived from joint family income?

(3) Whether any oral partition taken place?

(4) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for partition and separate

possession?

(5) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for permanent injunction

restraining from selling the properties or making any encumbrance?

(6) What relief is entitled for plaintiffs?.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/10/2025 08:51:49 pm )

6. The 3rd plaintiff was examined as PW.1 and eleven

documents were marked on the side of the plaintiff under Exs.A1 to A11.

The first defendant was examined as DW.1, the second defendant was

examined as DW.2 and independent witness was examined as DW.3 on

behalf of the defendants 1 to 3 and 103 documents were marked as Exs.B1

to 103.

7. On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available

on record, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the suit items 1 to 4, 8

to 14 in 'A' schedule property, entire 'B' schedule property and item 1 of 'C'

schedule property were purchased out of joint family properties. Since the

female heirs of Nachiappan namely D4 to D6 are also entitled to equal share

in his properties, the trial Court was pleased to grant preliminary decree for

1/5th share in the above mentioned properties, in respect of the other parties,

the trial Court held that the properties were not available for partition and

dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants 1 to 3 have

preferred this first appeal.

8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants would

submit that all the suit properties except item 8 of 'A' and 'B' schedule

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/10/2025 08:51:49 pm )

properties were purchased in the individual name of first defendant

Munusamy. According to him, the first defendant was engaged in tamarind

business and the same was established by various lease agreements entered

into by first defendant with 3rd parties as per Exs.B23 to B103. The trial

Court, without taking into consideration the independent source of income

available to the first defendant, committed a serious error in treating various

items purchased in the name of first defendant as joint family properties

available for partition. The learned counsel further submitted that in respect

of the properties purchased by Nachiappan, there was an oral partition in the

year 1975 and the same has not been properly taken into consideration by

the trial Court. He further submitted that the properties were managed by

Muniammal, w/o.Nachiappan and hence the income out of properties left by

Nachiappan was not at all received by first defendant to enable him to

utilise that income for purchase of other items of suit properties. Therefore,

he sought for setting aside of the trial Court judgment and decree in respect

of various items of suit properties except item 8 of 'A' and 'B' schedule

properties.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/10/2025 08:51:49 pm )

9. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the contesting

respondents 1 to 3 /plaintiffs would submit that the trial Court on proper

appreciation of evidence available on record came to the conclusion that the

properties purchased in the name of first defendant were in fact purchased

out of joint family funds and hence it acquired the character of joint family.

The learned counsel pointed out that till the death of first plaintiff's husband

Duraisamy, the family was joint family and hence any purchase made in the

name of first defendant prior to death of Duraisamy in the year 1985 shall

be treated as the one for the benefit of the joint family out of joint family

income. The learned counsel by pointing out the admission in DW.1's

evidence that family was managed by mother of Duraisamy and Munusamy

from the year 1963 submitted that existence of joint family and its nucleus

had been proved to raise a presumption that acquisition in the name of first

defendant was only out of joint family funds. Therefore, the trial Court

properly appreciated the evidence available on record and had granted

decree for partition in respect of items 1 to 4, 8 to 14 in 'A' schedule

property, entire 'B' schedule property and item 1 of 'C' schedule property

and therefore it requires no interference from this Court.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/10/2025 08:51:49 pm )

10. Based on the pleading of the parties and arguments of the

learned counsel appearing for either side, the following points are arising

for consideration in this appeal:

(i) Whether the items 1 to 4, 8 to 14 in 'A' and 'B' schedule and

item No.1 of 'C' schedule are available for partition?

(ii) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to 1/5th share in the suit

properties?

(iii) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to permanent injunction

against alienation?

(iv) Whether the appeal is deserved to be allowed or not?.

(v) Whether the CMP.Nos.4751 of 2022, CMP.Nos.15005 and

15007 of 2025 are to be allowed or not?.

11. Point No.V:

CMP.No.4751 of 2022 is a petition filed by respondents 1 to 3

seeking reception of eleven documents as additional evidence under Order

41 Rule 27 of CPC.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/10/2025 08:51:49 pm )

CMP.No.15005 of 2025 is yet another petition filed by the

respondents 1 to 3 seeking reception of three documents namely the award

passed by Revenue Divisional Officer, Krishnagiri dated 27.01.1998 'A'

mortgage deed dated 28.01.1973 as additional evidence.

12. CMP.No.15007 of 2025 has been filed by the respondents

1 to 3 seeking to amend the plaint so as to include certain new properties as

subject matter of the suit.

13. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that

certain properties belonging to the joint family have been omitted in the

plaint in view of the fact that the plaint was prepared as per the instruction

given by the first petitioner, mother of the petitioners 2 and 3. It was stated

that the first petitioner is not a wise lady acquainted with worldly affairs

and therefore due to her inadvertence and oversight, some of the properties

belonging to the joint family were omitted in the plaint. He also submitted

the additional documents produced by the petitioners in these two

applications would help the petitioner to prove that new properties sought to

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/10/2025 08:51:49 pm )

be included in the plaint were purchased out of joint family funds or out of

compensation received by the first defendant in respect of the family

properties acquired by the state. He further submitted that documents

produced in all these applications would further advance the case of the

plaintiffs.

14. These applications were opposed by the contesting

respondents/appellants in the main appeal on the ground that property

sought to be included in the plaint were not joint family properties. It was

further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that these

petitions were filed by the respondents 1 to 3 with inordinate delay without

explaining reason for not filing the applications before the trial Court.

15. The reason given by the respondents 1 to 3 for filing

amendment application is the ignorance of first petitioner. The petitioners 2

and 3 were also arrayed as co-plaintiffs along with first petitioner in the

main suit and infact the plaint was signed by all of them. The 3rd

petitioner/3rd plaintiff who has sworn affidavit in amendment application

Srikandan was examined as PW.1. Therefore, it is clear that the first

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/10/2025 08:51:49 pm )

petitioner was not examined on behalf of the plaintiff, only the 3 rd petitioner

was examined as PW.1. When he found time to appear before this Court

and make a statement on oath, he could have very well verified the plaint

and mentioned about non inclusion of alleged joint family properties

available for partition. For the reason best known to him, he failed to take

any steps to file amendment application before the trial Court . As per

proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of amended CPC, a party seeking amendment

of the pleading must establish before the Court that notwithstanding the

exercise of due diligence by him, he was prevented from seeking

amendment before commencement of trial. In the case on hand, the

respondents 1 to 3/plaintiffs failed to file amendment application before the

trial Court. The appeal is of the year 2015, the amendment application is

filed only in the year 2025 before the first appellate Court, when the appeal

is ready for final disposal, therefore, absolutely, there is nothing in the

affidavit filed in support of petition to amend the plaint to satisfy

requirement of Proviso to Order VI Rule 17. Hence, this Court is not

inclined to accept the petition in CMP.No.15007 of 2025, accordingly, the

same is dismissed.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/10/2025 08:51:49 pm )

16. CMP.No,4751 of 2022 and CMP.No.15005 of 2025 have

been filed to receive additional evidence. Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC reads

as follows:

“(1) The parties to an appeal shall not be entitled to produce additional evidence, whether oral or documentary, in the Appellate Court, But if-

(a) the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred has refused to admit evidence which ought to have been admitted, or (aa) the party seeking to produce additional evidence, establishes that notwithstanding the exercise of due diligence, such evidence was not within his knowledge or could not, after the exercise of due diligence, be produced by him at the time when the decree appealed against was passed, or

(b) the Appellate Court requires any document to be produced or any witness to be examined to enable it to pronounce judgment, or for any other substantial cause, the Appellate Court may allow such evidence or document to be produced, or witness to be examined.

(2) Wherever additional evidence is allowed to be produced by an Appellate Court, the Court shall record the reason for its admission.”

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/10/2025 08:51:49 pm )

17. Obviously, the contingency mentioned in Rule (1) (a) of

CPC is not satisfied in this case as no attempt was made by the respondents

1 to 3 to file these documents before the trial Court. The documents

produced by the respondents 1 to 3 are all very old documents, the

reasoning given by the petitioner for their failure to produce it before the

trial Court is not acceptable. In the affidavit filed in support of petition to

receive additional evidence, it is stated by the respondents 1 to 3 that some

of the documents are available with appellants 1 to 3 in the appeal and

notice to produce will be issued for production of originals. Absolutely,

there is nothing on record to suggest, why the respondents 1 to 3 failed to

issue notice to produce, when the matter was very well pending before the

trial Court.

18. The respondents 1 to 3 have not given any convincing

reason to establish that they exercised due diligence, when the suit was

pending and notwithstanding exercise of due diligence they were prevented

from producing these documents before the trial Court. Hence, the

contingency contemplated under Rule 27 (1) (aa) of CPC is also not

satisfied in this case.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/10/2025 08:51:49 pm )

19. The respondents 1 to 3 have not taken any steps to file

petition to receive additional evidence immediately after admission of the

appeal. Infact, they filed two set of application to receive additional

evidence. The respondents 1 to 3 are not entitled to produce documents in

installment that too before the first appellate Court. The failure of the

respondents 1 to 3 to produce the documents before the trial is not very well

explained and they have not satisfied any substantial cause to allow the

application under Order 41 Rule 27. In fact, the documents filed in support

of CMP.No.15005 of 2025 are only to support the amendment application

filed by the respondents 1 to 3, this Court already dismissed the amendment

application and there is no basis in the pleadings for additional documents

produced by the respondents.

20. This Court feels that the production of additional

documents is not absolutely essential to enable this Court to dispose of the

appeal and based on the documents available on record, this Court can

satisfactorily dispose of the appeal and documents produced by the

respondents 1 to 3 by way of additional evidence are not absolutely

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/10/2025 08:51:49 pm )

necessary to enable this Court to dispose of the appeal. In such

circumstances, the contingency contemplated under Order 27 Rule (1) (b) of

CPC is also not satisfied. Accordingly, the CMP.No.4751 of 2022 and

15005 of 2025 are dismissed. The point No.5 is answered against the

respondents 1 to 3.

21. Discussion on point No.(i):

Though the suit was filed by respondents 1 to 3/plaintiffs

seeking partition in respect of eighteen items in 'A' schedule, 'B' schedule

and two items in 'C' schedule, the trial Court granted partition decree in

respect of items 1 to 4, 8 to 14 in 'A' schedule, entire 'B' schedule and item

1 of 'C' schedule properties. The said decree is challenged by defendants 1

to 3. The respondents 1 to 3/plaintiffs have not filed any independent

appeal challenging the dismissal of the suit, in respect of the other items.

After filing of appeal by defendants 1 to 3, the plaintiffs filed Cross

Objection with inordinate delay of 3521 days. The petition to condone

delay in filing Cross Objection was already dismissed. Hence, the decree

passed by the trial Court negativing the relief of partition in respect of other

items had attained finality. Therefore, in this appeal we are only concerned

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/10/2025 08:51:49 pm )

with items 1 to 4, 8 to 14 in 'A' schedule, 'B' schedule and item 1 of 'C'

schedule properties.

22. In the written statement filed by the defendants 1 to 3, they

clearly admitted that item 8 of 'A' schedule property and entire 'B' schedule

property were purchased by the father of Duraisamy and first defendant

namely Nachiappan. Therefore, all the children of Nachiappan are entitled

to 1/5th share each in the said properties. There is no dispute with regard to

the said two items. Hence, the decree of the trial Court in respect of the

item 8 of 'A' schedule and 'B' schedule properties need not be interfered

with due to the admission in the pleadings of the defendants.

23. As far as items 1 to 4, items 9 to 14 in 'A' schedule and

item 1 of 'C' schedule are concerned, the documents filed on behalf of the

plaintiff would establish that the revenue document patta stands in the name

of the first defendant. Ex.A3-patta relates to items 1 to 4 in 'A' schedule.

Ex.A4-patta relates to items 5 to 12 in 'A' schedule. Ex.A5-patta relates to

items 13 and 14 in 'A' schedule. Ex.A6 relates to item 16 in 'A' schedule.

Ex.A7 is patta relating to item 15 in 'A' schedule. Ex.A8 is patta relating to

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/10/2025 08:51:49 pm )

item 17 in 'A' schedule. These revenue documents stand in the name of first

defendant. As far as item No.1 of 'C' schedule is concerned, the plaintiff has

not produced any revenue documents.

24. The various registered documents filed by the defendants 1

to 3 would establish that items 3, 4 and 9 to 12 and 14 in 'A' schedule and

item 1 of 'C' schedule were purchased by 1st defendant. Ex.B5-sale deed

dated 24.04.1972 would establish item No.3 was purchased by first

defendant from Muniappan and others. Ex.B6, dated 22.06.1971 would

establish that item 4 was purchased by first defendant from Marikathan @

Chellan and others. Ex.B11, sale deed dated 24.03.1975 would establish

that the first defendant purchased items 9, 10, 11 in 'A' schedule from one

Chinnukan and Seeraman. Ex.B8, dated 25.04.1968 would establish that

the first defendant purchased item 12 of 'A' schedule from Chinnukan and

others. Ex.B9, dated 05.04.1972 would establish that item 14 of 'A'

schedule was purchased by first defendant from Kuppukan and others.

Ex.B17 and 'B18 dated 14.12.1978 and 09.11.1982 respectively would

establish that the first defendant and one Ramamoorthi purchased item No.1

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/10/2025 08:51:49 pm )

of 'C' schedule from Krishnamoorthy. Later, the first defendant got release

of Ramamoorthi's share under Ex.B19 dated 15.09.1993.

25. From the documents mentioned above, it is clear that

items 3 to 4, 9 to 12 and 14 in 'A' schedule and item 1 of 'C' schedule were

purchased by first defendant in his name prior to 11.07.1985, the date of

death of Duraisamy. Ex.A1-death certificate produced by the plaintiff

would establish that Duraisamy died on 11.07.1985. The Revenue

documents produced by the plaintiffs mentioned above would establish that

the patta stands in the name of first defendant in respect of items 1 and 2,

13. Therefore, it is clear that items 1 to 4, 9 to 14 in 'A' schedule and item 1

of 'C' schedule were either purchased by first defendant prior to death of

Duraisamy or Revenue documents stand in his name. The first defendant

even in his pleadings clearly admitted item 8 of 'A' schedule and entire 'B'

schedule was purchased by father of Duraisamy and first defendant namely

Nachiappan. From the evidence of first defendant, who was examined as

DW.1, it was established that mother of Duraisamy and first defendant had

been looking after the family from 1963 onwards. Even, as per the case of

first defendant, there was a partition between him and his brother

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/10/2025 08:51:49 pm )

Duraisamy in the year 1975. Therefore, according to him, the family was

living jointly till the year 1975, Duraisamy died only in the year 1985.

With regard to the purchase of the suit properties in his name DW.1 deposed

as follows:

“...... 9 Kjy; 14 ,d brhj;Jf;fs; 25/4/1968y; vd;d tpiyf;F th';fpndd; vd;gJ epidtpy;iy/ 5/4/1968y; th';fpa brhj;jpd; gug;gst[ kjpg;g[ bjhpahJ/ vd;Dila brhe;j brhj;jpypUe;J te;j tUkhdj;ij bfhz;L nkw;go brhj;Jfis th';fpndd;/ 8/8/1968y; brhj;J th';fpa nghJ Jiurhkp capnuhL ,Ue;jhh;/ nkw;go brhj;J Tl;L FLk;g tUkhdj;jpypUe;J te;j tUkhdj;ij bfhz;L th';fg;gl;lJ vd;whYk; me;j rkaj;jpy; vdf;F jdpgg; l;l tUkhdk; fpilahJ vd;whYk; rhpay;y/ 1975k; Mz;L th';fpa brhj;jpd; kjpg;g[ epidtpy;iy/ 03/09/1977y; th';fpa brhj;jpd; gug;gst[ kw;Wk; kjpgg; [ epidtpy;iy. jdpgg; l;l tUkhdk; vt;tst[ vd;W epidtpy;iy/ 1968y; th';fpa brhj;Jfspd; kjpg;g[ gug;gst[ gj;jpu';fis ghh;jj; hy; jhd; bjhpak[ ;/ 1968y; vdJ jdpgg; l;l tUkhdk; epidtpy;iy/ vdf;F ghj;jpag;gl;l brhj;jpypUe;J tUkhdk; te;jJ/ 1978 kw;Wk; 1982y; vdJ jdpg;gl;l tUkhdk; khjk; U:/10.000-? rk;ghjpj;njd;/ tha;bkhHp ghfk; ve;j Mz;L gphpff; g;gl;lJ vd;W bjhpahJ 2001w;F gpwF jhd; tha;bkhHp ghfk; Vw;gl;lJ.....”

26. Therefore, DW.1 is not in a position to say what was the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/10/2025 08:51:49 pm )

sale consideration and what was the extent of the properties purchased by

him under various sale deeds. He could not say what was his independent

income during 1968 to 1977. He clearly deposed that from the year 1963

onwards, the family had been administered by his mother. During the year

1963, 1st defendant was hardly 18 years old. Hence, the evidence available

on record would suggest that the family was joint prior to death of

Duraisamy and properties should have been purchased out of join effort. It

is not in dispute that the first defendant is older than first plaintiff's husband

Duraisamy. Nachiapppa Gounder, father of Duraisamy and Munusamy

died in the year 1963. Thereafter, family had been looked after by mother

due to the young age of her sons namely Duraisamy and Munisamy.

Though, the oral partition in the year 1975 was pleaded, there is no

convincing evidence available on record to suggest that the said oral

partition had taken place and it was acted upon by mutation of revenue

records. All the revenue records stand in the name of first defendant as he

happens to be eldest male member of the family. All the purchases were

made in the name of first defendant as he happens to be the eldest male

member of the family.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/10/2025 08:51:49 pm )

27. It is settled law, whenever properties are purchased in the

name of eldest male member of the family [Manager – Kartha], there is a

general presumption, the same was purchased out of joint family funds

unless the contrary is proved. In this regard, reference may be had

Mallesappa Bandeppa Desai and others Vs. Desai Mallappa and others

reported in AIR 1961 SC 1268. The relevant observation of Apex Court

reads as follows:

We do not know what the income of the said properties was; obviously it could not be of any significant order; but, in our opinion, there is no doubt that where a manager claims that any immovable property has been acquired by him with his own separated funds and not with the help of the joint family funds of which he was in possession and charge, it is for him to prove by clear and satisfactory evidence his plea that the purchase money proceeded from his separated fund. The onus of proof must in such a case be placed on the manager and not on his coparceners.

28. Therefore, in the absence of any contra evidence to suggest

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/10/2025 08:51:49 pm )

Munusamy had independent source of income at the time of purchase of

various items of suit properties covered under sale deeds mentioned above,

the trial Court rightly presumed that properties purchased in the name of

first defendant were joint family properties. Duraisamy died only in the

year 1985. Therefore, the trial Court came to the conclusion that all the

purchases made in the name of first defendant prior to death of Duraisamy

should have been only out of the joint family funds. It was claimed by the

first defendant that he was engaged in the business of taking Tamarind

Thoppu under lease and hence he had independent source of income. In

order to substantiate the said plea various lease Muchalikkas entered

between first defendant and third parties were marked as Ex.B23 to B103.

A perusal of said exhibits would indicate that all those lease deeds were

subsequent to 1994. The purchase of the above items of the suit properties

were made well prior to 1985 under sale deeds mentioned above.

Therefore, absolutely, there is no evidence available on record to suggest

Munusamy, the first defendant had independent source of income prior to

1985 (i.e., at the time of purchase of above mentioned items of suit

properties). Therefore, I concur with the conclusion reached by the trial

Court that items 1 to 4, 8 to 14 in 'A' schedule, entire 'B' schedule and item 1

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/10/2025 08:51:49 pm )

of 'C' schedule are joint family properties and hence available for partition.

The point No.1 is answered against the appellants.

29. Discussion on point Nos.(ii), (iii) and (iv):

Once the above mentioned items are treated as joint family

properties all the children of Nachiappan namely Duraisamy, Munusamy,

defendants 4, 5 and mother of 6th defendant are entitled to equal share.

Hence, the trial Court was justified in granting a decree for 1/5th share in

favour of the plaintiffs. Since there was attempt on the part of the

defendants 1 to 3 to alienate the suit properties, the trial Court granted

injunction restraining them from alienating the suit properties till the

partition of the properties by metes and bounds. The said decree deserves

to be confirmed. In view of the discussions made earlier, the appeal suit

has no merit and accordingly, the same is liable to be dismissed. The point

Nos.2 to 4 are answered accordingly against the appellants.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/10/2025 08:51:49 pm )