[Cites 11, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
Thirumalaikannan vs Bharathan Alias Muthuraj, on 10 April, 2026
Author: G.R.Swaminathan
Bench: G.R.Swaminathan
SA(MD). No.159 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved On : 17.03.2026
Delivered on : 10.04.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI
SA(MD). No.159 of 2025
and
CMP(MD)No.5953 of 2025
1.Thirumalaikannan
2.Vimalarani
... Appellants/Appellants2&3 /
Defendants 2 & 3
Vs.
1.Bharathan @ Muthuraj
2.Manimaran
3.Vellaiyan ... Respondents 1 to 3/Respondents 1 to 3/
Plaintiffs 1 to 3
Mahendran (died)
4.Manikandan
5.Kannan
6.The Tahsildar,
Taluk Office, Periyakulam Taluk,
Theni District.
1/26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
SA(MD). No.159 of 2025
7.The District Collector,
District Collectorate,
Madurai Road,
Theni Taluk,
Theni District.
8.The Commissioner,
Municipallity Office,
Periyakulam Taluk,
Theni District. ... Respondents 4 to 8/Respondents 5 to 9/
Defendants 4 to 8
9.Jeyalakshmi
10.Dinesh
11.Minor.Nithesh
(Rep. By mother and guardian
Jeyalakshmi) ... Respondents 9 to 11/Respondents 10 to 12/
L.R.s of 4th plaintiff
12.Ramakrishnan ... 12th Respondent / 1st Appellant /
1st Defendant
PRAYER :- Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Civil
Procedure Code, against the decree and judgment of the lower Appellate
Court dated 26.02.2025 passed in A.S.No.17 of 2013 on the file of the
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Periyakulam, confirming the
2/26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
SA(MD). No.159 of 2025
judgment and decree of the trial Court, dated 15.07.2011 passed in
O.S.No.125 of 2007 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Periyakulam.
For Appellants : Mrs.J.Padmavathi Devi
For Respondents : Mr.N.Dilip Kumar for R1 to 3 & 9 to 11
: Mr.K.S.Selvaganesan
Additional Government Pleader R6 to 8
: Mr.V.Ilanchezian for R12
: No appearance for R4 and R5
JUDGMENT
The defendants 2 and 3, in O.S. No.125 of 2007, are the appellants,
challenging the concurrent findings of the trial Court as well as the first
Appellate Court.
2. The facts that are necessary for deciding the present second
appeal, briefly:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Pleadings:
The Plaint in brief:
2.1. The suit properties were originally belonging to one Vellaiyan
Servai, the father of the first plaintiff. The said Vellaiyan Servai married
Kailayee Ammal as the first wife and Vellaiyammal as the second wife
both of his wives being sisters. Through Kailayee Ammal, Vellaiyan
Servai was blessed with the first plaintiff and the father of the plaintiffs 3
and 4, viz., Maruthai. Through second wife, Vellaiyammal, Vellaiyan
Servai was blessed with a daughter, Maruthammal, wife of the first
defendant and a son Sannasi Servai. Both Vellaiyammal and Sannasi
Servai were mentally challenged persons. Vellaiyan Servai died on
07.01.1968 and his wife, Kailayee Ammal died on 14.02.1993 and the
father of the plaintiffs 3 and 4, viz. Maruthai died on 14.06.1995. The
second wife Vellaiyammal died on 14.11.2002 and Sannasi Servai died
as a bachelor on 11.04.2000. The wife of the first defendant
Maruthammal died on 25.01.2005. The second plaintiff-Manimaran is
the son of the first plaintiff. The defendants 2 and 3 are the son and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
daughter of Maruthammal, that is the children of the first defendant. The
defendants 4 and 5 are lessees of defendants 1 to 3, in sofar as the item
Nos.1 and 2 suit properties. The Government officials are impleaded as
defendants 6 to 8. Items 1 and 2 are landed properties, which has been
leased to the defendants 4 and 5. Item No.3 is the house property, which
is in possession of the 1st defendant, who is the husband of late
Maruthammal.
2.2. Vellaiyan Servai has executed a registered Will dated
15.12.1966 bequeathing the suit property which is set out in B schedule
properties in the Will to Maruthammal, who has to maintain
Vellaiyammal and Sannasi Servai, both of whom are mentally
challenged, from and out of income from Will B schedule property, with
no right of encumbrance. After the death of Vellaiyan Servai, Sannasi
Servai and Maruthammal, the said properties would devolve on the first
defendant and Maruthai and their legal heirs. As Maruthammal died, in
terms of the will dated 15.12.1996, the properties devolved on the
plaintiffs and one Umamaheswari, who is the daughter of Maruthammal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
The said Umamaheswari has already executed a release deed in favour
of the plaintiffs 3 and 4 and hence, she is not joining the plaintiffs in
filing the suit for recovery of possession, mandatory injunction and
mense profits.
3. Written statement filed by the defendants 1 to 3 in brief:
The defendants 1 to 3 admitted the relationship between the
parties. The defendants denied that the first plaintiff's mother Kailayee
Ammal was the legally wedded wife of Vellaiyan Servai, contending that
she was married to a person in Anaikatti Village and Vellaiyammal alone
is the legally wedded wife of Vellaiyan Servai. The contention that
Vellaiyammal and Sannasi Servai were mentally challenged is denied.
The plaintiffs do not have any right in the suit properties, even in terms
of Will dated 15.12.1966. Tthe plaintiffs have suppressed the earlier
Wills dated 01.12.1966 and 21.09.1966. The Will dated 15.12.1996
under which the plaintiffs now claim right, as well as the Will dated
21.09.1996 were executed by Vellaiyan Servai, under coercion. At that
time, he was not in good health and was in a confused state of mind.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Maruthammal filed a suit in O.S.No.278 of 1970 before the District
Munsif, Dindigul, for recovery of the suit properties from the plaintiffs
and the defendants 1 to 3 were in possession and enjoyment of the
properties. Maruthammal took possession of the suit properties. The said
Maruthammal and subsequent to her life time, defendants 1 to 3 are in
lawful continuous possession and enjoyment. The suit is liable to be
dismissed.
4. Written statement filed by the 6th defendant, which is adopted by
the 7th defendant, in brief:
These defendants are unnecessary parties and as and when the
plaintiffs or the defendants, filed appropriate petition along with
supporting document, will be considered and patta will be issued. These
defendants therefore prayed for dismissal of the suit.
5. Written statement filed by the 8th defendant, in brief:
Plaint schedule Item No.3 was assessed in the name of
Maruthammal and she died leaving behind the defendants 1 to 3 as her
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
legal heirs. Assessment of house tax has been transferred in the names of
the defendants 1 to 3. The 8th defendant also prayed for dismissal of the
suit. The defendants 4 and 5 remain exparte.
6.Issues framed by the trial Court:
Based on the pleadings, the trial Court has framed the following
issues:
'1. thjpf;F jhth nrhj;Jf;fisg; nghWj;J
tpsk;Gif ghpfhuk; fpilf;fj;jf;fjh?
2. jhth 1>3tJ yf;fr; nrhj;Jf;fisg;
nghWj;J 6>7 gpujpthjpfs; thjp ngaUf;F
gl;lhit khw;wk; nra;J nfhLf;Fk;gb
nraYWj;Jf; fl;lis fpilf;fj;jf;fjh?
3. thjpfSf;F 3-k; yf;fr; nrhj;jhd tPl;il
nfhLj;J thp tpjpg;ig khw;wk; nra;Ak;gb 8-k;
gpujpthjp kPJ nraYWj;Jf; fl;lis cj;juT
fpilf;fj;jf;fjh?
4. thjpfSf;F 1 Kjy; 5 gpujpthjpfs;
jhth nrhj;ij xg;gilf;Fk; fhyk; tiu gpd;
kf#y; e\;b fpilf;fj;jf;fjh?
5. 1 Kjy; 3 gpujpthjpfs; $WtJ Nghy;
5.1.06-k; Njjpa tpLjiyg;gj;jpuk; nry;yj;jf;fjh?
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6. 15.12.1966k; Njjp Xh; nts;isad; Nrh;it
vOjpa capy; rhrdk; rl;lg;gb nry;yj;jf;fjh?
7. 1>2>3 gpujpthjpfs; $WtJ Nghy;
1.12.1964-k; kw;Wk; 21.9.1966-k; Njjpfspy; Vw;gl;l
capy;fspd; tptuq;fis kiwf;fg;gl;Ls;s
tptuq;fs; cz;ikjhdh?
8. thjpfSf;F fpilf;ff;$ba ,ju
ghpfhuq;fs; vd;d?'
7.Trial:
At trial, the first plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and marked
Ex.A1 to Ex.A14. On the side of the defendants 1 to 3 examined
themselves as D.W.1 to D.W.3 and one Baskar was examined as D.W.4
and Ex.B1 to Ex.B5 were marked.
8.Decision of the trial Court:
The trial Court, on appreciation of the pleadings and oral and
documentary evidence, decreed the suit by the judgment and decree dated
15.07.2011.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
9.Decision of the First Appellate Court:
Challenging the decision of the trial Court, a first appeal was filed
in A.S.No.17 of 2013 before the Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Periyakulam. Before the first appellate Court, the appellant also took out
an application for adducing evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC. The
first Appellate Court dismissed the application for adducing additional
evidence and also dismissed the appeal.
10.Present appeal:
Challenging the concurrent findings of the Courts below, the
present Second Appeal has been filed.
11. Substantial questions of law:
On 03.04.2025, this Court admitted the Second Appeal on the
following substantial question of law:
1. Whether the suit for recovery of possession is maintainable
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
particularly when the plaintiffs suffered a decree in earlier suit in O.S.No.
278 of 2010 filed by the first defendant's wife Maruthammal and others
and took some possession of the property through court?
12. I have heard Mrs.J.Padmavathi Devi, learned counsel for the
appellant and Mr.N.Dilipkumar, learned counsel for the respondents 1 to
3 and 9 to 11 and Mr.K.S.Selvaganesan, learned Additional Government
Pleader for the respondents 6 to 8 and Mr.V.Illanchezian, learned counsel
for the 12th respondent.
13. Arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant:
13.1. Mrs.J.Padmavathi Devi, learned counsel for the appellants,
taking me through the genealogy tree of the family and the earlier
proceedings filed in O.S.No.279 of 1970 and the first appeal therefrom
would vehemently contend that the plaintiffs are guilty of suppression of
material facts. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, firstly,
the plaintiffs have suppressed two earlier Wills executed by Vellaiyan
Servai in the year 1966. She would also contend that the plaintiffs have
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
not disclosed the factum of having suffered decrees for recovery of
possession in the earlier suit filed by the wife of the first defendant and
mother of the defendants 2 and 3 /Maruthammal. The learned counsel
would state that when the issues pertaining to the very same property had
already been gone into in detail in the earlier round of litigation, the
present attempt is on the part of the respondents/plaintiffs, is barred by
res judicata.
13.2. The learned counsel for the appellants would also state that
when the property had been given to the daughter of Vellaiyan Servai,
viz., Maruthammal, her limited right, by virtue of Section 14 of the
Hindu Succession Act, would blossom into an absolute estate and the
First Appellate Court has erroneously dealt with the said issue by holding
that Ex.A1 Will came into existence only on 15.12.1966, and therefore,
the question of a Hindu woman having any limited share prior to 1956
does not arise at all.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
13.3. The learned counsel for the appellants would rely upon the
decision of this Court in Thimma.V.Saradha Ammal (Died) v.
M.N.Kumareshbabu reported in 2019-2-MWN(Civil)537 and a
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maharaja Pillai Lakshmi
Ammal v. Maharaja Pillai Thillanayakom Pillai reported in 1988-1-
SCC-99. The learned counsel would therefore pray for the appeal being
allowed as prayed for.
14.Arguments of the learned counsel for the contesting respondents:
14.1. Per contra, Mr.N.Dilipkumar, learned counsel for the
contesting respondents 1 to 3 and 9 to 11 would at the outset state that
though the plaintiffs have not disclosed about the earlier suit filed by
Maruthammal/ wife of first defendant and mother of defendants 2 and 3,
they have justified their filing of the suit on the ground that the earlier
proceedings do not operate as a bar insofar as the present cause of action
is concerned and even in the said suit, Maruthammal relied on the very
same Will dated 15.12.1966 and claimed right and that based on the said
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Will alone, the suit filed by Maruthammal and others came to be decreed
pursuant to which, she was also in possession of the property. The
learned counsel for the contesting respondents would submit that if at all
res judicata has to be invoked, it can operate only against the defendants
1 to 3 and not against the plaintiffs.
14.2. Mr.N.Dilipkumar, learned counsel would further contend that
once the Will was admitted by Maruthammal in the earlier suit filed by
her, she was estopped from challenging the truth and genuineness of the
Will and subsequently, it is not open to her legal heirs also and since the
claim is only under Maruthammal, taking me through Mr.Dilipkumar
would contend that since Vellaiyammal, second wife of Vellaiyan Servai
and son born to them, viz.,Sannasi Servai were both mentally challenged,
Maruthammal was appointed as a next friend and the Will clearly set out
that after the demise of Vellaiyammal and Sannasi Servai and
Maruthammal, schedule B properties to the Will, which is now subject
matter of the present proceedings would revert back to the sons through
the first wife Kailayee Ammal, who would only have a limited right of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
enjoyment and after the life time, the properties would go to their
children. It is therefore the submission of Mr.Dilipkumar that the earlier
suit which was filed by Maruthammal was only for enforcing right of
enjoyment of Vellaiyan and Sannasi Servai and after the demise of both
the mentally challenged person and the demise of Maruthammal, in terms
of the Will, the property is bequeathed only to the grand children,
through the sons of the first wife and therefore, there is no question of
any res judicata as contended by the learned counsel appellants.
14.3. Insofar as the arguments touching Section 14 of the Hindu
Succession Act, Mr.Dilipkumar, learned counsel for the respondents
would state that the appellants have not pleaded that Maruthammal had
only a limited right and that such limited right blossomed into an
absolute right under Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, either in
the written statement or by letting in evidence in this regard and in the
first time, the issues as raised before the first Appellate Court, which too
were negatived, according to the learned counsel for the respondent,
Mr.Dilipkumar, rightly.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
14.4. Mr.Dilip Kumar has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Bhagwat Sharan (Dead) v. Purushottam reported in
2020-6-SCC-387 and a decision of the Division Bench of this Court, to
which I was a party in Boomathi (Died) V. Murugesan (Died) and
others made in AS.No.299 of 2013 dated 09.03.2023.
15. I have paid my anxious and careful consideration to the
submissions advanced by the learned counsel on either side. I have also
gone through the pleadings as well as the oral and documentary evidence
available on record. I have also carefully perused the findings arrayed at
by the trial Court as well as the first Appellate Court, in ultimately
decreeing the suit concurrently.
16. Discussion:
16.1. The relationship between the parties is not in dispute.
Vellaiyan Servai, died on 07.01.1968, leaving behind his two wives
Kailayeeammal and Vellaiyan Servai, who are admittedly own sisters. It
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
is the contention of the respondents / plaintiffs that Vellaiyan Servai had
executed a Will dated 15.12.1966, which has been marked as Ex.A1.
Rights are claimed under the said Will, and recovery of possession has
been sought from defendants 1 to 3.
16.2. It is vehemently contended by the learned counsel for the
appellants that the said Will dated 15.12.1966 was not a true and genuine
Will and was not brought about with the consent of the sisters.
Admittedly, Maruthammal had filed a suit in O.S.No.278 of 1970 and the
decree and judgment in the said suit 28.02.1972, exhibited as Ex.A11 and
Ex.A12 in the present proceedings. The decree in the said suit was no
doubt appealed against in A.S.No.383 of 1972, which was also dismissed
on 10.04.1973. The judgment and decree of the first appellate Court have
been exhibited as Ex.A13 and Ex.A14.
16.3. On going through the judgments of the trial Court as well as
the first appellate Court, I find that firstly, the wife of the first defendant
and mother of defendants 2 and 3, viz., Maruthammal had filed suit along
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
with Vellaiyammal, her mother and Sannasi Servai, her brother.
Maruthammal herself has described Vellaiyammal and Sannasi Servai as
persons of unsound mind, and she represented them as their next friend.
Even in the said suit, Maruthammal for herself and on behalf of the
defendants Vellaiyammal and Sannasi Servai relied on the Will dated
15.12.1966 executed by Vellaiyan Servai and only on the basis of the
said Will, sought for relief. Therefore, it is not now open to them to turn
around and contend that the Will dated 15.12.1966 is not a genuine
document or that it was brought about by the exercise of undue influence
over Vellaiyan Servai. The defendants / appellants, who are claiming
under Maruthammal are estopped from taking such a plea and in this
regard, I do not find any infirmity committed by the trial Court as well as
the first Appellate Court in their assessment of the pleadings and
evidence in arriving at the finding that the defendants were bound by the
Will dated 15.12.1966.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
16.4. Coming to the issue as to whether having lost the suit in
O.S.No.278 of 1970 and also the appeal therefrom, whether the plaintiff
can maintain the present suit in respect of the very same properties. On
going through the Will Ex.A1, I find that the suit properties are described
as schedule B to the said Will. The testator Vellaiyan Servai has clearly
recorded the fact that his wife Vellaiyammal and son Sannasi Servai. are
mentally unsound and for such purposes, Vellaiyan Servai has appointed
his daughter Maruthammal as the guardian and next friend. In the said
Will, Vellaiyan Servai has clearly expressed his wishes that after the
demise of Vellaiyammal and Sannasi Servai, property would stand
reverted to the sons and grand children through first wife Kailayee
Ammal. Admittedly, Vellaiyammal died on 14.11.2002 and Sannasi
Servai died on 11.04.2000 and subsequently, Maruthammal also died on
25.01.2005. Accordingly, the plaintiffs’ cause of action to seek recovery
of possession of the suit property, in the occupation of Maruthammal or
her legal heirs, arises only on the death of Maruthammal and not earlier.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
16.5. Though I am in agreement with the argument of
Mr.N.Dilipkumar that in the absence of any pleading in the written
statement, the appellants cannot take the plea that Maruthammal’s
limited right blossomed into a full estate under Section 14 of the Hindu
Succession Act, however, at the same time, considering the fact that the
first Appellate Court has considered the said issue on behalf of the
appellants, I am proceeding to decide as well.
16.6. There is no dispute with regard to Section 14 of the Hindu
Succession Act, I am proceeding to consider Section 14 of the Hindu
Succession Act, which is extracted hereunder:
“14.Property of a female Hindu to be her
absolute property.-
(1)Any property possessed by a female Hindu,
whether acquired before or after the commencement of
this Act, shall be held by her as full owner thereof and
not as a limited owner.
Explanation.- In this sub-section, “property”
includes both movable and immovable property
acquired by a female Hindu by inheritance or devise, or
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
at a partition, or in lieu of maintenance or arrears of
maintenance, or by gift from any person, whether a
relative or not, before, at or after her marriage, or by
her own skill or exertion, or by purchase or by
prescription, or in any other manner whatsoever, and
also any such property held by her as sridhana
immediately before the commencement of this Act.
(2) Nothing contained in sub-section (1) shall
apply to any property acquired by way of gift or under a
will or any other instrument or under a decree or order
of a civil court or under an award where the terms of
the gift, will or other instrument or the decree, order or
award prescribe a restricted estate in such property. “
16.7. In the present case, the testator has clearly mentioned that
Maruthammal would have only a limited estate for the purpose of
maintenance of his second wife Vellaiyammal and his son Sannasi Servai
and therefore, it cannot be contended that the right given to
Maruthammal would blossom into full estate. Though the First Appellate
Court may not be right in holding that, since the Will came into existence
after the commencement of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and Section
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
14 would not apply, Section 14(1) of the Act applies not only to rights
acquired prior to the amendment but also thereafter. For the above
reasons, the conclusion arrived at by the first appellate Court that Section
14(1) will not apply need not be disturbed.
16.8. Coming to the decisions that have been relied upon, as
already discussed, the plea regarding Section 14 of the Hindu Succession
Act was not pleaded in the written statement. In any event, Section 14(2)
would operate as a bar to the appellants contending that Maruthammal’s
limited right would blossom into a full estate. The decisions in
Maharaja Pillai Lakshmi Ammal's case as well as Thimma V.Saradha
Ammal's case would have no application to the facts of the present case,
since both were concerned with the enlargement of a Hindu woman’s
estate into a full estate.
16.9. In Boomathi’s case, the Division Bench held that when the
adverse litigant admits the Will, there is no necessity to prove the Will,
applying the definition of ‘admission’ under Section 17 of the Evidence
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Act read with Section 58, which does not require a party to prove
admitted facts.
16.10. In Bhagwat Sharan's case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a
similar set of facts held that when the plaintiffs therein had not only
accepted the Will, but also had taken the benefit of the same, they could
not turn around and urge that the Will was not valid, The Hon’ble
Supreme Court relied on the principle of estoppel and disallowed the
plaintiffs therein from asserting that a limited right had blossomed into a
full estate. This decision, in fact, would squarely apply to the facts of the
present case.
17. For all the foregoing reasons, the substantiate question of law
is answered against the appellants and in favour of the contesting
respondents.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
18. Result:
In fine, the second appeal is dismissed. However, there shall be no
order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is
closed.
10.04.2026
NCS : Yes/No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
LS
TO
1. The Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Periyakulam.
2.The Subordinate Judge,
Periyakulam.
3.The Tahsildar,
Taluk Office,
Periyakulam Taluk,
Theni District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4.The District Collector,
District Collectorate,
Madurai Road,
Theni Taluk,
Theni District.
5.The Commissioner,
Municipallity Office,
Periyakulam Taluk,
Theni District.
6. The Section Officer,
VR Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
P.B.BALAJI,J.
LS
Pre-delivery Judgment made in
10.04.2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
