[Cites 20, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
A.Ponnusamy (Died) vs R.Palanisamy on 17 February, 2026
S.A.No.568 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on 18.11.2025
Pronounced on 17.02.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.GOVINDARAJAN
THILAKAVADI
S.A.No.568 of 2020
and C.M.P.Nos.11996 of 2020
A.Ponnusamy (died)
2.K.Subbulakshmi
3.A.Ammaniammal
4.S.Poongothai
5.C.Bakkiyalakshmi
6.C.Sathyamoorthy
7.Ramathal
8.Mani
9.K.P.Shanmugam
10.P.Nagarathinam
[*Appellants 7 to 10 are brought on
record as legal heirs of the deceased
1st appellant vide order of Court
dated 30.07.2025 made in
C.M.P.No.14920, 14917 & 14914 of
2022 in S.A.No.568 of 2020 [KGTJ]
...Appellants
Page 1 of 26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/02/2026 01:31:23 pm )
S.A.No.568 of 2020
Vs.
1.R.Palanisamy
2.D.Manonmani
3.R.Mardhathaal
...Respondents
Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 CPC, 1908 to set aside
the decree and judgment dated 24.01.2020 passed in A.S. No.43 of 2018,
on the file of the 1st Additional District Judge Coimbatore, reversing the
Judgment and decree dated 28.02.2018 passed in O.S.No.1248 of 2010,
on the file of the II Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore.
For Appellant : Mr.N.Manokaran
For Respondents : Mr.D.Muthukumar
for Mr.P.D.Anbarasan
for R1 to R3
JUDGMENT
The above second appeal arises out of the judgment and decree
dated 24.01.2020 passed in A.S. No.43 of 2018, on the file of the 1 st
Additional District Judge Coimbatore, reversing the Judgment and decree
dated 28.02.2018 passed in O.S.No.1248 of 2010, on the file of the II
Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/02/2026 01:31:23 pm )
2. The case of the plaintiff is that Sangappa Gounder and
Kuppanda Gounder are brothers. Kuppanda Gounder had no children
whereas Sangappa Gounder had 2 sons namely, Ramsamy Gounder and
Ayee Gounder. The plaintiffs are the legal heirs of Ayee Gounder and the
defendants are the legal heirs of Ramasamy Gounder. The said Kuppanda
Gounder executed two settlement deeds dated 07.08.1933 settling 2 acres
out of 6.02 acres and 7 anganam out of 14 anganam house in favour of
Ayee Gounder and his proposed wife Tmt. Rangammal. After the death of
Ayee Gounder, his brother Ramasamy Gounder arranged for a partition
under the partition deed dated 12.04.1961 between himself and
Ponnusamy / 1st plaintiff for himself and as a guardian for his brother
minor Chinnasamy. In the said partition, Ramasamy Gounder was allotted
'A' schedule property. Ponnusamy and his minor brother Chinnasamy
were allotted 'B' schedule property. The plaintiffs 2 to 4 were not made as
parties in the partition deed dated 12.04.1961, and is no reference about
the settlement deed dated 07.08.1933 in the said partition deed dated
12.04.1961. Under such circumstances, the plaintiffs came to know about
the said settlement deed only in December 2009. Hence, the plaintiffs.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/02/2026 01:31:23 pm )
3. The claim of the plaintiff was resisted by the defendant stating
that neither the defendants 1 and 2 nor their father Ramasamy Gounder
had knowledge about the settlement deed dated 07.08.1933. The 1 st
plaintiff had not disclosed the said settlement deed dated 07.08.1933 at
the time of entering into the partition deed dated
12.04.1961. The recitals in the partition deed dated 12.04.1961 would
reveal that there was an oral partition about 6 to 7 years prior to the said
partition. Both the parties to the partition deed dated 12.04.1961 had
improved the land and also dealt with their respective shares. Hence, the
suit is liable to be dismissed.
4. Based on the above pleadings, the trial court framed necessary
issues. The 1st Plaintiff was examined as PW1 and 12 documents were
marked. Two witnesses were examined on the side of the Defendant and
17 documents were marked. The trial court based on the materials on
record, decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff, against which, the
defendant preferred the appeal suit. The first appellate court reversed the
findings of the Trial Court, hence the second appeal has been preferred by
the Plaintiffs.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/02/2026 01:31:23 pm )
5. Challenging the above judgment and decree passed in A.S.
No.43/2018, this Second Appeal is preferred by the plaintiffs.
6.This second appeal is admitted on the following substantial
questions of law:
“i. Whether the Courts below were right in
upholding the validity of Ex.A2 partition deed, more so,
when the minor son of Ayee Gounder namely Chinnasamy
Gounder was represented by bis brother as a guardian,
even though his mother, the natural guardian, was alive?
ii. Whether the Courts below were right in
upholding Ex.A2, in the absence of the daughters of Ayee
Gounder having been made parties to the said
document?’’
7. Mr.N.Manokaran, the learned counsel for the appellants would submit
that admittedly, Kuppanda Gounder had half share in item 1(6.02 acres)
and item 2 (14 anganam house). He had no children, therefore, he had
executed Ex.A1 settlement deed dated 07.08.1933 in favour of Ayee
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/02/2026 01:31:23 pm )
Gounder in respect of 2 acres out of 6.02 acres and 7 anganam out of 14
anganam house. Recitals in Ex.A1 clearly indicate that the physical
possession has been handed over to the settlee/ Ayee Gounder. During the
lifetime of Ayee Gounder, his brother Ramasamy Gounder (father of D1
and D2) did not dispute the settlement deed/ Ex.A1. Under such
circumstances, excluding the extent settled under Ex.A1, the remaining
extents were alone available for partition on 12.04.1961 (Ex.A2). But
after the death of Ayee Gounder in the year 1958, the father of the
defendants 1 and 2 had managed to include Ex.A1 properties in Ex.A2
partition deed dated 12.04.1961, detrimental to the interest of the
plaintiffs.
8. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the stand
taken by the Respondents that Ex.A1 settlement deed was not acted upon,
is unsustainable for various reasons. Firstly, the defendants have pleaded
that neither they nor their father Ramasamy Gounder were aware of
Ex.A1 settlement deed dated 07.08.1933, therefore, the defendants were
unable to explain their stand. In fact, there was no issue framed with
regard to acceptance of Ex.A1 in the suit or a point for determination was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/02/2026 01:31:23 pm )
raised in the appeal suit. The plea of non acceptance of Ex.A1 is
misconceived in view of the legal position settled in :-
(i) Renikuntla Rajamma vs. Sarvanamma reported in 2024(9)
SCC 445 16.
(ii) S.Ganesh vs. Barathirajan reported in 2009(5) CTC 558 10.
(iii) K.Jaya vs. Padma reported in MANU/TN/6017/2023, the
Hon'ble Division Bench in K.Jaya case held as under:
"The action of the civil Court declaring the
document invalid on the ground that there is no
acceptance is in our opinion totally uncalled for. There
was no issue framed in the suit regarding the acceptance
or otherwise of the settlement. In fact in the written
statement filed, the defendant has specifically pleaded that
her father had told her even before execution of the
settlement deed that he is going to execute a settlement
deed and that she had accepted the same. The document
also reads that possession was handed over to the
defendant at the time when the settlement was executed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/02/2026 01:31:23 pm )
Therefore, the District Court was not right in concluding
that the settlement deed is invalid for want of acceptance.
We are therefore unable to sustain the judgement of the
trial court"
9. The Learned Counsel for the Appellants further submitted that,
Ex.A2 partition deed dated 12.04.1961 is void ab initio, as, the 1st
plaintiff, aged 21 years then, had allegedly represented his minor brother
Chinnasamy, aged 9 years, after the death of their father Ayee Gounder.
Admittedly, their mother Tmt. Chinnammal, wife of Ayee Gounder was
very much alive. While so, the 1st plaintiff cannot legally act as a guardian
for his minor brother Chinnasamy under the Hindu Minority and
Guardianship Act, 1956. Section 4 (b) defines "Guardian", Section 4 (c)
defines "Natural Guardian" means any of the guardian mentioned in
Section 6. Section 6 reads that the natural guardian of a Hindu minor in
the case of a boy is "the father", and after him "the mother". Nowhere the
Act empowers the brother to act as a natural guardian. Whereas, the
Learned First Appellate Court has held contrary to sections 4 and 6 of the
Act as under:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/02/2026 01:31:23 pm )
nkYk; th/rh/M/2 Vw;gl;l nghJ rpd;dr;rhkp ,stuhf
,Ue;jhy ; mtUf;F fhg;ghsuhf mtuJ jhahh;
fhl;lg;glhky; 1k; thjp fhg;ghsuhf fhl;o Vw;gl;l th/rh/M/2
ghf rhrdk ; bry;yhJ vd;w tprhuiz ePjpkd;wj;jpd;
Kot[k; jtwhdJ/ Vbdd;why; ,sth; rpd;dr;rhkpapd; cld;
gpwe;j rnfhjuh; jhd; 1 k; thjp Mthh;/ me;j FLk;gj;jpd;
Mz; thhpRk; mth; jhd;/ mjdhy; 1 k; thjp mtuJ
rnfhjuuhd ,sth ; rpd;dr;rhkpf;F fhg;ghsuhf ,Ue;J
Vw;gl;l th/rh/M/2 ghf rhrdk; bry;yf;Toanj MFk;/
10. The learned counsel further contends that the above reasoning
is against law and that the 1st plaintiff can never be a guardian for his
minor brother Chinnasamy when his mother Chinnammal was alive. The
fact remains that while the parties can afford to remain negligent, the
Court cannot. Therefore, Ex.A2 is per se a void document. If a document
is void, it need not be challenged in the Court of Law as held in Prem
Singh v. Birbal (2006 (5) SCC 353) which read as hereunder:
"16. When a document is valid, no question arises of its
cancellation.When a document is void ab initio, a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/02/2026 01:31:23 pm )
decree for setting aside the same would not be
necessary as the same is non est in the eye of the law, as
it would be a nullity 25. In Balvant N. Viswamitra v.
Yadav Sadashiv Muled this Court opined that a void
decree can be challenged even in execution or a
collateral proceeding holding: (SCC p. 712, para 9)
"9. The main question which arises for our
consideration is whether the decree passed by the trial
court can be said to be 'null' and 'void. In our opinion,
the law on the point is well settled. The distinction
between a decree which is void and a decree which is
wrong, incorrect, irregular or not in accordance with
law cannot be overlooked or ignored. Where a court
lacks inherent jurisdiction in passing a decree or
making an order, a decree or order passed by such court
would be without jurisdiction, non est and void ab
initio. A defect of jurisdiction of the court goes to the
root of the matter and strikes at the very authority of the
court to pass a decree or make an order. Such defect has
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/02/2026 01:31:23 pm )
always been treated as basic and fundamental and a
decree or order passed by a court or an authority
having no jurisdiction is a nullity. Validity of such
decree or order can be challenged at any stage, even in
execution or collateral proceedings"
11. While so, the defendants 1 and 2 claim that Ex.A2 partition is
fair, genuine and bonafide. Admittedly, the plaintiffs 2 to 4/ daughters and
none of the wives of late Ayee Gounder were parties to the partition deed.
Except the 1st plaintiff, aged 21, none others had signed
Ex.A2. In fact, the 1st plaintiff and his minor brother Chinnasamy were
under a fiduciary relationship with Ramasamy Gounder, who was in a
position of active confidence, therefore, the burden of proving fair play in
the transaction lies on him as per Section 111 of the Indian Evidence Act,
1872, and not for the plaintiffs to prove negative. To support his
contention, he has relied upon the judgment in Krishna Mohan Kul vs.
Pratima Maity- 2004 (9) SCC 468- Para 12.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/02/2026 01:31:23 pm )
12. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant further contends that
the Plaintiffs 2 to 4/Daughters are entitled to get share as per Ex.A1
settlement deed. Under Ex.A1 settlement deed dated 07.08.1933, late
Kuppanda Gounder had settled 2 acres out of 6.02 acres and 7 anganam
out of 14 anganam house in the name of Ayee Gounder. The properties
settled under Ex.A1 are the separate properties of Ayee Gounder, in which
his daughters/ plaintiffs 2 to 4 and equally his wives are legally entitled to
get equal shares along with the 1st plaintiff Ponnusamy and late
Chinnasamy (P5 and P6 are his legal heirs) as per Section 8 (a) of the
Hindu Succession Act, 1956, because they are Class I heirs as per the
Schedule. Unfortunately, the Ld. First Appellate Court has proceeded as if
all the properties are ancestral, and the plaintiffs 2 to 4 were not
coparceners. In the absence of any pleadings for "blending" in the written
statement, such a conclusion would take away the property rights of the
daughters as Class I heir for their father Ayee Gounder.
13. He further submitted that Ex.B1 partition 21.11.1981 cannot
operate as Estoppel as held by the Appellate Court as the plaintiffs got 2
acres in item 1 and 7 anganam house in item 2 under Ex.A1 settlement
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/02/2026 01:31:23 pm )
deed. Whereas, without reference to Ex.A1 settlement deed, Ex.A2
partition came into existence, in which, the entire properties was divided
without reference to plaintiffs 2 to 4. Where upon, Ex.B1 partition deed
dated 21.11.1989 was entered into between the 1st plaintiff and his son.
Hence, he would contend that, it does not mean that the right under
Ex.A1 has been given up or the plaintiffs are estopped from disputing
Ex.A2. The disputed partition deed/ Ex.A2 executed without reference to
Ex.A1 settlement deed has no impact on the property right of the
plaintiffs, which is now recognized as not only a Constitutional right but
also a statutory right. Therefore it is trite law that there can be no estoppel
against a statute. To support his contention, he has relied upon the
judgment reported in 2022 (19) SCC 388.
14. The Appellant Counsel further submits that Ex.A1 settlement
deed dated 07.08.1933 is 90 years old document, which is presumed to be
valid as per Section 90 of the Evidence Act. In fact, the father of the
defendants 1 and 2 are guilty of misleading the plaintiffs without
disclosing their entitlement under Ex.A1. He further contends that the
Learned First Appellate Court has not even framed Points for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/02/2026 01:31:23 pm )
Determination as mandated under Order 41 Rule 31 CPC, except framing
the question "Whether this Appeal has to be allowed". Hence the
judgement of the First Appellate Court is liable to be reversed. To support
his contention, he has relied upon the judgments in :
i. Prem Singh Vs. Birbal & Others reported in 2006 (5) SCC 353
ii. Renikuntla Rajamma Vs. K.Sarwanamma reported in 2014 (9)
SCC 445
iii. Krishna Mohan Kul & Another Vs. Pratima Maity & Ors
reported in 2004 (9) SCC 468
iv. S.Ganesh Vs. Bharathirajan reported in 2009 (5) CTC 558.
15. On the other hand, Mr.D.Muthukumar, learned counsel for the
respondent would submit that the Settlement Deed dated 07.08.1933,
executed by Kuppanda Gounder in favour of Ayee Gounder and
Rangammal, has not been proved to have been acted upon at any point of
time. The Appellant has failed to produce a single document to establish
possession, enjoyment, or mutation in the name of the alleged donees.
Mere registration of a document does not ipso facto transfer title, unless,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/02/2026 01:31:23 pm )
accompanied by delivery of possession and acceptance by the donee. The
learned counsel for the respondent contends that in the absence of
subsequent acts of ownership or mutation clearly indicates that Ex.Al
remained a dormant document without legal effect. The contention that
such deed operated as an independent source of title is wholly
misconceived and contrary to the conduct of the parties spanning over
several decades.
16. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that the
Appellant has not produced any record to show that the 1933 Settlement
Deed (Exhibit A1) was ever acted upon. No patta, chitta, adangal, or tax
receipts stand in the name of the donees, nor any revenue mutation is
shown to have taken place. In the absence of such material, the claim of
possession or enjoyment is wholly unsubstantiated. A settlement deed,
though registered, is not operative unless accepted and followed by
possession. The conduct of the parties from 1933 to 1961 unmistakably
shows that the property remained joint and undivided. Thus, Exhibit A1
cannot displace the binding partition that took place subsequently.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/02/2026 01:31:23 pm )
17. He further submitted that Ex.A2 the Partition Deed dated
12.04.1961, was executed consciously by the 1 st Plaintiff along with his
minor brother, represented through their mother. The 1st Plaintiff, being
21 years of age, was legally competent to contract and he voluntarily
participated in the said partition, which was acted upon and accepted by
all family members. The Respondent Counsel further submits that the
plea that the 1st Plaintiff was unaware of Exhibit A1 or that the same was
suppressed is an afterthought. The very fact that he subsequently executed
Exhibit B1 in the year 1989 in his own capacity, demonstrates his
complete acceptance of the 1961 partition arrangement. The partition
deed having been validly executed, acted upon, and enjoyed for decades,
cannot now be reopened after the passage of more than fifty years.
18. The learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that the
contention of the Appellant that he came to know about Exhibit Al only in
December 2009 is palpably false and intended solely to overcome the bar
of limitation. The 1st Plaintiff, being a signatory to the 1961 partition
deed and later executing another deed in 1989, was fully aware of the
property and its transactions. The plea of "date of knowledge" under the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/02/2026 01:31:23 pm )
Limitation Act is inapplicable when the person challenging the instrument
was himself a party to it. The claim, therefore, is hopelessly barred by
limitation. Having remained silent for over five decades and having
derived benefits under the partition, the Appellant is estopped in equity
and law from asserting any fresh claim on the basis of an unacted
settlement deed.
19. The learned counsel further submitted that the appellant has
miserably failed to identify the suit schedule property with certainty. The
boundaries, measurements, and extents described in Exhibit Al do not
tally with those in Exhibit A2 or the suit schedule. The claim for one acre
out of two acres allegedly forming part of four acres covered by Exhibit
Al is vague, speculative, and incapable of enforcement. In the absence of
specific identification or demarcation, no relief of possession or
injunction can be granted. The uncertainty as to the subject-matter of the
suit itself is fatal to the maintainability of the claim.
20. The learned counsel further submitted that the Appellant has
not sought any declaratory relief regarding ownership or title under the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/02/2026 01:31:23 pm )
1933 settlement deed. Without a prayer for declaration, the consequential
relief of possession and mandatory injunction cannot be maintained. The
Appellant's pleadings themselves disclose uncertainty regarding the
existence and location of the alleged property. The courts below rightly
held that the suit is defective in its frame and fails on the fundamental
ground of lack of title and identity of the property.
It is submitted that, the lower appellate court has rendered its findings
based on cogent appreciation of oral and documentary evidence. The
conclusions reached are supported by law and facts, and no perversity or
misapplication of legal principles has been demonstrated by the
Appellant. The absence of specific points for determination in the lower
appellate court judgment does not vitiate the decision when the reasoning
and findings sufficiently address the issues raised. The decree passed is
legally sustainable and calls for no interference. To support his
contention, he has relied upon the judgment in the case of Sri Mahesh Vs
Sangram and Others reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 12.
21.Heard on both sides and records perused.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/02/2026 01:31:23 pm )
22. The specific contention of the learned counsel for the
appellants/plaintiffs is that, the plaintiffs are entitled for a share in the suit
properties on the basis of Ex.A1 settlement deed dated 07.08.1933
executed by Kuppanda Gounder in favour of Ayee Gounder in respect of
2 acres out of 6.02 acres and 7 anganam out of 14 anganam house. It was
denied by the defendants stating that Ex.A1 settlement deed was never
acted upon and the claim of the plaintiffs is barred by limitation and
estoppel. However, neither the trial Court nor the First Appellate Court
have framed necessary issue or point for consideration in this regard.
Since the First Appellate Court has addressed the above issue and
rendered findings in this regard, the absence of specific points for
determination in the first Appellate Court judgment does not vitiate the
decision of the first Appellate Court. The entire claim of the plaintiffs
revolves around the alleged settlement deed dated 07.08.1933 marked as
Ex.A1. The plaintiffs submits that Ex.A1 settlement deed executed by
Kuppanda Gounder in favour of Ayee Gounder and Rangammal, since he
had no children and the recitals in Ex.A1 clearly indicate that the physical
possession has been handed over to the settlee/Ayee Gounder. During the
life time of Ayee gounder, his brother Ramasamy Gounder, father of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/02/2026 01:31:23 pm )
defendants 1 & 2 did not dispute the settlement deed. Under such
circumstances, the properties mentioned in Ex.A1 settlement deed were
not available for partition took place on 12.04.1961 under Ex.A2. While
so, the father of the defendants 1 & 2 manage to include Ex.A1 properties
in Ex.A2 partition deed, after the demise of Ayee Gounder in the year
1958, detrimental to the interest of the plaintiffs. However, the plaintiffs
failed to prove that the alleged settlement deed was acted upon at any
point of time. No single document was produced to establish possession,
enjoyment, or mutation in the name of Ayee Gounder and Rangammal. As
rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents/defendants,
mere registration of documents does not ipso facto transfer title unless it
is accepted by the donee accompanied by delivery of possession. No
patta, chitta, adangal, or tax receipts stands in the name of the donees,
nor any revenue mutation is shown to have taken place. In the absence of
such material, the claim of possession or enjoyment of the donees is
wholly unsubstantiated. It would only indicate that Ex.A1 settlement deed
was not given effect. Further, there was a partition on 12.04.1961 under
Ex.A2 partition deed in which the 1st plaintiff along with his minor
brother took part. Subsequently, the 1st plaintiff executed another partition
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/02/2026 01:31:23 pm )
deed in the year 1989 under Ex.B.1 with respect of the properties allotted
to him under Ex.A2 partition deed. This would goes to show that he had
accepted the partition which took place in the year 1961. Though the
plaintiffs would contend that they came to know about Ex.A1 settlement
deed only in December 2009 cannot rest their claim based on the above
document for the reason that, the 1 st plaintiff being a signatory in Ex.A2
partition deed and later executed another partition deed in 1989 between
his family members. Having remained silent for over five decades and
having derived benefits under the partition, the plaintiffs are estopped in
equity and law from asserting any fresh claim on the basis of the said
settlement deed. The partition deed having been validly executed, acted
upon and enjoyed for decades, cannot now be reopened after the passage
of more than 50 years.
23.The next contention of the plaintiffs is that, Ex.A2 partition
deed is not valid, since the minor son of Ayee Gounder namely
Chinnasamy Gounder was represented by his brother as a guardian, even
though his mother, the natural guardian was alive. It is well settled that
the natural guardian could not dispose of the share of the minor in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/02/2026 01:31:23 pm )
joint family property. But, in the present case, the mother being a widow
cannot pursue a share as a lineage under Section 8 of the Act by claiming
through her husband as class I legal heir, and the law prevailing at the
time of 1961, enables the brother to stand as guardian and to represent the
minor, as there is no conflict of interest and the interest of the minor was
not deprived.
24.The further contention of the plaintiffs is that, the daughters of
Ayee Gounder were not made as parties in Ex.A2 partition deed and
therefore, the same is not valid. It is not in dispute that the properties
were ancestral in nature on the date of Ex.A2 partition deed (12.04.1961)
and therefore, the daughters of Ayee Gounder cannot be construed as
coparceners and they did not have right to ancestral property by birth in
the year 1961, under the Hindu Succession Act of 1956, until the Hindu
Succession (Amendment) Act of 2005 came into force and only when the
properties were available for partition. As rightly pointed out by the
learned counsel for the respondents/defendants, where rights have
crystallized through the acts of parties and decades of enjoyment have
ensued, the Courts are slow to unsettle or reopen such arrangement unless
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/02/2026 01:31:23 pm )
the underline instrument is specifically challenged and invalidated. A
partition deed which has been accepted and acted upon for over half a
century acquires a presumption of correctness and finality. Mere
allegations cannot undo the settled legal effect of such a document.
Moreover, long standing possession, mutation and subsequent
arrangements flowing from an earlier partition reinforce its binding
nature, cannot be permitted to reopen the partition unless it is an invalid
document. In the present case, no such challenge has been made against
Ex.A2 partition deed. Further, after the life time of Ramasamy Gounder
his heirs namely the defendants 1 & 2 have executed a partition deed
under Ex.B3 on 18.10.2018 dividing the properties allotted to their father
under Ex.A2 partition deed. It is therefore, evident that the parties and
their descendants have continuously enjoyed their respective shares
derived from Ex.A2 partition deed and have created further sub partitions
duly recorded and acted upon. Therefore, the rights settled under the
1961 partition deed followed by the 1989 partition deed, cannot be
reopened merely because subsequent heirs wish to revisit settled matters.
The plaintiffs have absolutely no subsisting right or claim over the suit
properties. Their reliance upon Ex.A1 settlement deed is misconceived
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/02/2026 01:31:23 pm )
and untenable. Furthermore, mere assertions of late knowledge about
Ex.A1 settlement deed do not ipso facto extend limitation. The pleadings
must clearly disclose the circumstances preventing discovery despite the
exercise of due diligence. In the absence of such averments, the plea of
postponed limitation stands excluded. The statutory requirement of due
diligence is a substantive threshold which must be satisfied to displace
the ordinary rule that limitation begins to run from the date of execution
of the instrument. In the present case, by execution of Ex.A2 partition
deed, the plea of date of knowledge is devoid of any legal basis. A barred
right to challenge a partition cannot be revived by subsequent heirs.
Therefore, an unchallenged partition deed, after expiry of limitation, gain
statutory sanctity and it cannot be disturbed unless the deed itself is set
aside through a competent legal challenge.
25.In view of the above discussion, this second appeal is devoid of
merits. No perversity or infirmity found in the findings of the first
appellate Court. All the substantial questions of law are answered against
the appellants.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/02/2026 01:31:23 pm )
26.In the result,
(i) The second appeal stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
(ii) The decree and judgment dated 24.01.2020 passed in A.S.
No.43 of 2018, on the file of the 1st Additional District Judge Coimbatore,
is upheld.
17.02.2026
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-Speaking order
vsn
To
1. The 1st Additional District Judge,
Coimbatore,
2. The Additional Subordinate Judge,
Coimbatore,
3. The Section Officer,
VR Section, High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/02/2026 01:31:23 pm )
K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI,J.
vsn
Pre- delivery judgment made in
17.02.2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/02/2026 01:31:23 pm )
