Second appeal against a partition suit decree where plaintiffs claimed share as legal heirs. The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding lower courts'� rejection of adverse possession and insufficient evidence defence regarding pre-1956 marriage.
Second appeal dismissed with no 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 : 11.04.2019 PRONOUNCED ON : 27.04.2019 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.RAVINDRAN S.A.No.406 of 2007
Inbanathan
...Appellant/1st Defendant
Vs.
Prayer:
Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree in A.S.No.82 of 2003 on the file of the Sub-Court, Ranipet and dated 20.01.2005 in confirming the judgment and decree in O.S.No.10/2000 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Ranipet and dated 03.05.2002.
For Appellant : Mrs.V.Srimathi
For Respondents: No appearance. Set exparte vide order dated 11.04.2019.
JUDGMENT
Challenge in this second appeal is made to the judgment and decree dated 20.01.2005 passed in A.S.No.82 of 2003 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Ranipet, confirming the judgment and decree dated 03.05.2002 passed in O.S.No.10/2000 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Ranipet.
"1. When the plaintiffs, claim is wholly based on the Exhibit A.1, whether the courts below are right in allowing the plaintiffs to alter the plea and raise a claim wholly beyond the scope of the pleadings?
it is unnecessary to dwell into the facts of the case in detail.
property belonged to their mother Danalakshmi Ammal. According to the plaintiffs, Danalakshmi Ammal had acquired the suit property by way of the sale deed dated 19.06.1943. The abovesaid sale deed has been marked as Ex.A1. On a perusal of Ex.A1, as rightly determined by the courts below, it is seen that it is only Danalakshmi Ammal, who had acquired the title to the suit property by way of the same. Even the defendants have not, in specific, challenged the title of Danalakshmi Ammal in respect of the suit property on the basis of Ex.A1 sale deed. Accordingly, it is seen that the plaintiffs, being the daughters of Danalakshmi Ammal, and the defendants, being the legal representatives of Uthiranathan, the son of Danalakshmi Ammal, according to the plaintiffs, they are together entitled to 2/3 share in the suit property.
reference to the same. In such view of the matter, in my considered opinion, no substantial question of law is involved in this second appeal. Be that as it may, the substantial questions of law formulated in this second appeal are accordingly answered against the defendants and in favour of the plaintiffs.
15.In conclusion, the second appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition, if any, is closed.
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
bga
Copy to
+1cc to M/s.V.Raghavachari, Advocate sr.40852
S.A.No.406 of 2007
ca(co) nr 11/12/2019
3 issues framed by the court
Whether courts are right in allowing plaintiffs to alter plea and raise a claim beyond pleadings based on Exhibit A.1.
Whether courts are right in decreeing suit for partition in absence of specific pleadings regarding property description and ownership.
Whether adverse possession and invalid marriage plea justifies dismissal of partition suit.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Inbanathan
Lurthammal
Muniammal
T Ravindran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
