Dismissed

Kandappa Gounder@Kandasamy Gounder v. Muthusamy

Madras HC6 Nov 2019SA/1086/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a second appeal regarding a suit for partition, the High Court of Madras, noting that findings of the lower courts were sound and supported by evidence and that no substantial question of law arose, dismissed the appeal without admitting it. The court observed that the appellant's own admission regarding possession without partition weakened his defense.

What did the court decide?

Second appeal dismissed without being admitted; connected miscellaneous petition closed; no costs.

Kandappa Gounder@Kandasamy Gounder Vs Muthusamy — Partition | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 06.11.2019

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN

¶5

S.A.No.1086 of 2019 and C.M.P.No.23662 of 2019

¶6

K.Kandappa Gounder @ Kandasamy Gounder ..Appellant/1^st Defendant

¶7

Vs.

¶8

1.Muthusamy 2.Velusamy 3.Kannusamy 4.Pavayammal

¶9

..1^st Respondent/Plaintiff

¶10

..Respondents 2 to 4/Defendants 2 to 4

¶11

PRAYER: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C., to set aside the judgment and decree dated 15.06.2017 made in A.S.No.71 of 2014 on the file of the learned Sub Court, Bhavani confirming the judgment and decree dated 25.09.2014 made in O.S.No.392 of 2011 on the file of the learned First Additional District Munsif Court, Bhavani.

¶12

For Appellant : Mr.N.Manoharan

¶13

The 1^st defendant in O.S.No.392 of 2011 having suffered a decree for partition and separate possession of the suit properties at the hands of the courts below has come up with this Second Appeal.

¶14

The plaintiff sued for partition pleading that the suit properties originally belonged to one Palanimalai Gounder who died leaving behind four sons viz., Muthusamy Gounder, Petha Gounder, Kolandhaisamy Gounder and Sengoda Gounder. The 1^st defendant had purchased 1/4^th share from Petha Gounder and his children on 28.11.1975. He had also purchased another 1/4^th share belonging to Kolandhaisamy Gounder on 21.09.1994. The plaintiff has purchased 1/4^th share of Sengoda Gounder, the fourth son of Palanimalai Gounder under a sale deed dated 13.06.1994. One Rakkiya Gounder husband of the 4^th defendant and father of defendants 2 and 3 had purchased 1/4^th share from Muthusamy Gounder's heirs under the sale deed dated 03.10.1994.

¶15

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶16

Thus, the plaintiff would claim that he is entitled to 1/4^th share, while the 1^st defendant has ½ share and the defendants 2 to 4 put together have got 1/4^th share. Claiming that the properties remained undivided, the plaintiff had sought for partition.

¶17

The defendants 2 to 4 conceded the case of the plaintiff and also sought for a decree for partition and separate possession of their 1/4^th share.

¶18

The 1^st defendant viz., purchaser from two of the sons of Palanimalai Gounder resisted the suit contending that there had been a partition and the parties are in possession of separate portions of the property. He would rely upon the recitals in the sale deed in his favour dated 28.11.1975 which conveys 31 ½ cents in S.No.895/B within specific boundaries. He would also claim that the sale deed dated 21.09.1994 executed by Kolandhaisamy Gounder which recites conveyance of 32 ¾ cents in S.No.37/4 (Old S.No.895/B) within specific boundaries. Therefore, according to the 1^st defendant there had be division of properties and the parties are in possession of specific items of properties within the specific boundaries and hence the prayer for partition is untenable.

¶19

The courts below upon consideration of the evidence on record had concluded that there was no partition by metes and bounds of the properties of Palanimalai Gounder between his sons or the purchasers. In coming to the said conclusion, the courts below relied upon the description of the properties in the sale deeds executed by Sengoda Gounder in favour of the plaintiff and Muthusamy Gounder in favour of Rakaia Gounder, the predecessor in interest of the defendants 2 to 4. The courts below also took note of the evidence of the 1^st defendant as DW1, wherein, he had stated that there was no partition by metes and bounds and it is possible that the parties could be in possession of larger extent than what they are entitled to under the sale deeds.

¶20

The lower appellate court has also took note of the fact that the suit filed by the 1^st defendant in O.S.No.845 of 1994 seeking permanent injunction was dismissed on 12.06.1998 concluding that there was no partition by metes and bounds between the parties and as such the plaintiff therein viz., the 1^st defendant herein cannot seek for permanent injunction against the co-owners.

¶21

The said judgment of the trial court dated 12.06.1998 was confirmed in appeal in A.S.No.124 of 1998. The lower appellate court also pointed out that the plaint in O.S.No.845 of 1994 was filed on 20.09.1994 and on the very next day i.e.,

¶22

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶23

on 21.09.1994, the 1^st defendant had purchased the properties from Kolandhaisamy Gounder reciting specific boundaries. The lower appellate court took note of the contentions of the 1^st defendant as plaintiff in O.S.No.845 of 1994 to conclude that the sale deed Ex.A2 dated 21.09.1994 has been brought about by the 1^st defendant with evil intention.

¶24

I find that the conclusions of the courts below to the effect that there had been no partition of properties of Palanimalai Gounder between his children or the purchasers are sound and they are supported by material evidence. They cannot be termed as perverse. The very fact that the 1^st defendant himself has admitted that there was no partition by metes and bounds and the parties are enjoying specific portions of the properties as per convenience would de-rail his defence of there being actual partition by metes and bounds.

¶25

I do not find any question of law much less a substantial question of law in order to enable me to entertain the Second Appeal. Hence, this Second Appeal is dismissed without being admitted. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.

¶26

Sd/-

¶27

Assistant Registrar(CS-V)

¶28

//True copy//

¶29

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶30

dsa

¶31

¶32

The Subordinate Judge, Bhavani.

¶33

The I Additional District Munsif, Bhavani.

¶34

+1cc to Mr.N.Manoharan, Advocate SR.No.92298

¶35

+1cc to Mr.S.Kaithamalai Kumaran, Advocate SR.No.91945

S.A.No.1086 of 2019

MP(CO)

GMY(19/08/2020)

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Kandappa Gounder@Kandasamy Gounder v. Muthusamy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kandappa Gounder@Kandasamy Gounder v. Muthusamy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Srinivasulu Vs Kannappa Reddy

Vs

Thandavarayan Vs Lakshmi Ammal

A/M Thirumazisai Azhwar& Vs Parvathiammal

Kalianna Gounder Vs Santhamani

K.S.Prakasam Vs M/S.P.N.Murugan