[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
Balasubramanian vs Kalanjiam on 6 March, 2026
Author: N.Anand Venkatesh
Bench: N.Anand Venkatesh
S.A.(MD).No.109 of 2007
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 06.03.2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
S.A.(MD).No.109 of 2007
and
C.M.P.(MD).No.8026 of 2026
Balasubramanian : Appellant
Vs.
1. Kalanjiam
2. Chelliammal
3. Anthony
4. Karuppayee
5. Peria Ganapathy
6. Chinna Ganapathy
7. Guruvammal
8. Karuppayee
9. Chellathai
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/03/2026 12:26:31 pm )
S.A.(MD).No.109 of 2007
10. Lakshmi
: Respondents
PRAYER: Appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C. praying to present
the SA against the Judgment and Decree dated 23.01.2004 and made in
A.S.No.67/2003 on the file of the Sub Court, Sankarankoil confirming
the Judgment and decree dated 08.11.2001 made in I.A.No.109/1996 in
O.S.No.5/1996 on the file of the Addl. District Munsif Court,
Sankarankoil.
For Appellant : Mr.R.T.Arivukumar
for M/s. N.GA.Natraj
For Respondents : Mr.S.Sureshmanikam for R1
Mr.M.Ashok Kumar
for R6 to R9
JUDGMENT
This Second Appeal has been filed against the judgment and
decree passed by the Sub-Court, Sankarankoil, in A.S.No.67 of 2003,
dated 23.01.2004, confirming the final decree that was passed by the
Additional District Munsif Court, Sankarankoil, in I.A.No.109 of 1996 in
O.S.No.5 of 1996, dated 08.11.2001.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/03/2026 12:26:31 pm )
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
3. A preliminary decree was passed in the partition suit giving
1/4th share to the respective parties. When the final decree application
was filed, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed and the Advocate
Commissioner submitted the report and also the sketch by clearly
demarcating the properties to be allotted to the respective parties. Based
on the same, the final decree came to be passed on 08.11.2001.
Aggrieved by the same, the fourth defendant filed an appeal on the
ground that no property was allotted in favour of the fourth defendant
under the final decree and that even the property in which the fourth
defendant is in possession has been knocked of by the plaintiff and other
defendants and hence, the fourth defendant sought for the interference of
the final decree passed by the Additional District Munsif, Sankarankoil.
The said appeal came to be dismissed and aggrieved by the same, the
present second appeal has been filed before this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/03/2026 12:26:31 pm )
4. Notice of motion was ordered in this second appeal and even
substantial question of law was not framed. In view of the same, this
Court heard the counsel appearing on either side to see if any substantial
question of law is involved in this second appeal.
5. The main ground that was urged by the learned counsel for
the appellant is that as per the final decree, no property has been allotted
in favour of the fourth defendant and even the property in which the
fourth defendant is in possession is now sought to be taken away.
Therefore, it was submitted that the final decree which was passed and
confirmed by the appellate Court requires interference by this Court.
6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted
that the final decree was passed based on the consent given by all the
parties for the report submitted by the Advocate Commissioner. Hence
consent having been given, cannot be now sought to be withdrawn by
means of raising certain grounds on merits. Therefore, the learned
counsel for the respondents sought for dismissal of this second appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/03/2026 12:26:31 pm )
7. On carefully going through the final decree as well as the
judgment passed by the appellate Court, it is seen that no one raised any
objections for the report that was submitted by the Advocate
Commissioner along with the sketch. Therefore, the final decree was
passed based on such consent given by the parties. In view of the same,
the appellate Court has rightly held that once the parties have consented
that the final decree can be passed based on the report of the Advocate
Commissioner, there is no question of going into the merits of the case.
8. The ground that was raised by the learned counsel for the
appellant cannot be dealt with in a second appeal. If no objection had
been given and if the parties have consented for passing of the final
decree based on the report of the Advocate Commissioner, the same
cannot be challenged on the merits of the case. If really such consent had
been given without the concurrence of the appellant, the appellant should
have gone before the trial Court and sought for the review of the final
decree. This has not been done and curiously, the appellant is only
challenging the final decree on merits before the appellate Court and
before this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/03/2026 12:26:31 pm )
9. In the light of the above discussion, this Court does not find
any substantial question of law involved in the present second appeal.
Accordingly, the second appeal stands dismissed. Consequently,
connected civil miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.
06.03.2026
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
PKN
To
1. The Sub Court, Sankarankoil.
2. The Additional District Munsif Court, Sankarankoil.
3. The Record Keeper,
V.R.Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/03/2026 12:26:31 pm )
N.ANAND VENKATESH, J
PKN
Judgment made in
Dated:06.03.2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/03/2026 12:26:31 pm )
