Second appeal challenging partition decree regarding land acquisition award share. Court upheld finding that respondents, not appellants, are legal heirs based on preponderance of probabilities, invalidating legal heir certificate relied upon by appellants.
Second appeal dismissed with costs; connected miscellaneous petitions closed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON :01.04.2019 PRONOUNCED ON:24.04.2019
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAVINDRAN
S.A.No.1497 of 2005
and
C.M.P.No.19494 of 2005
1.Kannusami (Deceased)
2.Rangasami
3.Ramachandran (Deceased)
4.Saroja
5.Ezhilarasi
6.Vijayarani
7.Latha
8.Ashok
9.Rajeswari
10.Selvi
11.Sivagami
12.Kumara Raja
13.Selvakumar
Vs.
1.The District Collector,
Cuddalore District,
Cuddalore.
2.The Deputy Collector,
Land Acquisition,
Mantharakuppam,
Neyveli – 2.
3.The Special Tahsildar,
No.3, Land Acquisition,
Mantharakuppam,
Neyveli – 2.
4.The Secretary,
Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd.,
Corporate Office,
Neyveli -1.
5.Chief Engineer,
Land Acquisition Cell,
N.L.C Limited,
Neyveli.
6.Ramalingam
S/o, Amavasai
7.Ramalingam
S/o, Kumaran ... Respondents
Prayer:Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C., against the judgment and Decree of the Principal District Judge, Cuddalore in A.S.No.139 of 2003, dated 30.12.2004 confirming the judgment and decree of the Principal Subordinate Judge of Virudhachalam in O.S.No.204/98, dated 01.07.2003.
For Appellants: Mr.S.Ambigapathi
For RR4 and R5 : Mr.N.Nithyanandam
For RR6 and R7 : No appearance Set exparte vide order dated 01.04.2019
J U D G M E N T
Challenge in this second appeal is made to the judgment and decree dated 30.12.2004 passed in A.S.No.139 of 2003 on the file of the Principal District Court, Cuddalore, confirming the judgment and decree dated 01.07.2003 passed in O.S.No.204 of 1998 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Virudhachalam.
their claim of share in the award amount on the footing that they are the legal heirs of Thaiyal Nayagi and according to the plaintiffs, Thayal Nayagi is the sister of their mother Sivakami and Thaiyal Nayagi married Chinnapaiyan and the daughter Chellammal born to Chinnapaiyan and Thaiyal Nayagi had died and accordingly it is putforth that the plaintiffs and the 6th defendant who are the sister's children of Thayal Nayagi being her legal heirs as well as the legal heirs of Chinnapaiyan entitled to the award amount. Further it has also been putforth that the defendants 7 and 8 are not the family members and the 7th defendant was born to Samboornam, 8th defendant through another person namely Thailan and therefore not entitled to the award amount involved in the matter.
placed on record go to show that the 8th defendant Samboornam is the first wife of Chinnapaiyan, in such view of the matter, the 7th defendant born to 8th defendant and Chinnapaiyan would be the legal heir of Chinnapaiyan as well as Chellammal and in such view of the matter, the Courts below had rightly appreciated the materials placed on record and rejected the plaintiffs' case for claiming share in the award amount passed in respect of the property involved in the matter. As rightly determined by the Courts below, the plaintiffs had been all along not raising any objections to the award amount passed in the matter. In fact, the plaintiffs' father is found to have acquired the benefit of the award passed in the matter and thereafter it is seen that the plaintiffs have come forward making certain claim to the remaining award amount as if, they are the only legal heirs of Chellammal. However the plaintiffs having failed to establish the same other than marking Ex.A2 and when prior to the same the defendants 7 and 8 are declared as the legal heirs of Chellammal and when before the issuance of Ex.A2 certificate, the defendants 7 and 8 are not shown to be issued notice and heard, in such view of the matter, the Courts below in the nature of preponderance of probabilities, on the available materials, rightly determined that the plaintiffs are not entitled to the reliefs prayed for and in such view of the matter, in my considered opinion, the judgment and decree of the Courts below do not warrant any interference.
12.In conclusion, the second appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed with costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition, if any, is closed.
-s/dAssistant Registrar(CS-IV)
True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
To
1. The Principal District Judge,
Principal District Court,
Cuddalore.
2. The Principal Subordinate Judge,
Principal Subordinate Court,
Virudhachalam.
Copy to
The Section Officer,
VR Section,
High Court,
Chennai.
+1 CC to The Special Government Pleader sr 39499
+1 CC to Mr.N.Nithyanandam, Advocate sr 40430.
+1 CC to Mr.J.Shanmuga Sundar, Advocate sr 40224.
S.A.No.1497 of 2005
and
C.M.P.No.19494 of 2005
RR(CO)
SP(20/02/2020)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Courts below are right in holding that the plaintiffs are not entitled to the 3/4th share in the suit property?
Whether the Courts below are right in giving importance to Exhibits B7 to B24 regarding legal heir certificates?
Whether the Courts below have given any importance to Exhibit A2 and Evidence of P.W.5?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Kannusami (Deceased)
Rangasami
Ramachandran (Deceased)
Saroja
Ezhilarasi
Vijayarani
T. Ravindran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
