Partly allowed

Manimegalai v. Tamizhazhagan

Madras HC5 Jul 2021AS/55/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Madras partly allowed an appeal suit and dismissed a cross objection seeking modification of a preliminary partition decree. The court altered the share entitlements regarding 'B' Schedule properties, denying shares to the mother (plaintiff no. 4) in certain items while confirming modified shares for others.

What did the court decide?

Preliminary decree modified: Plaintiffs 1-3 and Defendants 1-3 entitled to 1/6th share in Items 1-3, 9-11, 13, 16, 17, and half share in Items 4, 18; Plaintiff 4 denied share in 'B' Schedule propertie

Manimegalai Vs Tamizhazhagan — Partition | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

MONDAY THE FIFTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶5

A.S.No.55 of 2013 and Cros.Obj.No.55 of 2019

¶6

1.Manimegalai

¶7

2.Sarasvathy

¶8

3.Devaki

¶9

4.Mallika ... Appellants/Plaintiffs

¶10

-Vs-

¶11

1.Tamizhazhagan

¶12

2.Kalaivani

¶13

3.Ananthavel

¶14

4.Bothuraja

¶15

5.Purushothaman

¶16

6.Manikandan

¶17

7.Subramani ...Respondents/Defendants

¶18

PRAYER : Appeal Suit is filed under Section 96 of CPC against the Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.2 of 2009 dated 30.10.2012 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Tindivanam.

¶19

Cross Objection No.55 of 2019

¶20

Tamizhagan S/o.Ramalingam ...1^st Defendant/1^st Respondent/Cross Objector

¶21

¶22

Manimegalai W/o. Arumugam

¶23

Saraswathy D/O Ramalingam 3 Devaki W/o.Govindasamy

¶24

4 Mallika W/o Ramalingam .. Plaintiff/Appellants/Respondents 1 to 4

¶25

5 Kalaivani W/o Kannadhasan

¶26

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

6 Ananthavel

S/o Ramalingam

7 Bathuraja

S/o Veemakounder.

8 Purusothaman S/o.Rajamanicka Gounder

¶32

9 Manikandan S/o Dhanusu

¶33

10 Subramani S/o Munusamy ...Defendants 2 to 7/Respondents 2 to 7/ Respondents 5 to 10

¶34

(No relief is prayed for against Respondents 5 to 10 and hence Notice may be dispensed with)

¶35

Prayer : To set aside the Judgment and Decree of the 2^nd Additional District Court, Tindivanam in O.S.2/2009 dated 30.10.2012 in so far as it relates to granting of 8/42 shares to the plaintiffs 1 to 3 in respect of items 1 to 3, 9 to 11 13, 16, 17 and half share in item Nos.4 and 18 and 1/7^th share to plaintiffs 1 to 4 in respect of items Nos.5, 6, 20 to 22 and half share of item Nos.4 and 18.

¶36

Decree : This Appeal Suit and Cross Objection coming on for hearing on this day and upon perusing the grounds of Appeal the order of the Lower Court and the maerial papers int his case and upon hearing the arguments of Ms.RV.Rukmani, Advocate for M/s.P.B.Ramanujam, Advocate for Appellant in Appeal Suit and Respondents 1 to 4 in Cross Objection and Mr.N.Suresh, Advocate for 1^st Respondent in Appeal Suit and Appellant in Cross Objection M/s.S.Lakshmanasamy, Advocate for Respondent 4 to 7 in Appeal Suit and Respondent 7 to 10 in Cross Objection none appearance and this Court Appeal Suit is partly allowed and Cross Objection is disposed of while this Court doth order and decree as follows:

¶37

i) that the preliminary decree passed by the Lower Court is modified and plaintiffs 1 to *3 and defendants 1 to 3 are entitled to have 1/7^th share in respect of Item Nos.5, 6, 20 *to 22 and ½ share in Item Nos.4 and *18 in 'B' Schedule Property.

¶38

***(ii) That the 4**^th Plaintiff, namely the mother of the Plaintiffs 1 to 3 and defendants 1 to 3 is entitled to only 1/49^th share in the above mentioned items of properties in 'B' Schedule Properties.

¶39

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

¶40

*iii) that *insofar as the Item Nos.1 to 3, 9 to 11, 13, 16, 17 and ½ share in Item Nos.4 and *18 of 'B Schedule Property are concerned the Plaintiffs 1 to 3 and defendants 1 to 3 are entitled to have *1/6th share *each and the fourth plaintiff, *mother will not be entitled to any share in 'B' Schedule Properties and the Preliminary decree is modified.

¶41

*iv) that there be no order as to costs in this appeal. Copy of the Annexure 'B' Schedule Property

¶42

Sd/Assistant Registrar(T & P) Dated:21.10.2021

¶43

(*) Amended as per order dated 15.06.2022 made in A.S.No.55 of 2013

¶44

Sd/Assistant Registrar Dated:24.06.2022

¶45

//True copy//

¶46

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶47

rna To

¶48

The II Additional District Judge, Tindivanam. *To be substitute to the order already despatched on Copy To 26.11.2021. The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court, Madras.

¶49

+1cc to M/s.P.B.Ramanujam, Advocate SR.No. *36304

¶50

+1cc to Mr.N.Suresh, Advocate SR.No.31477

¶51

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

¶52

DATED : 05/07/2021 DECREE :

¶53

A.S.No.55 of 2013 and Cros.Obj.No.55 of 2019

¶54

Partly allowing this Appeal Suit and dismissing the Cross Objection filling against II Additional District Judge, Tindivanam in O.S.No.2 of 2009 dated 30.10.2012 etc., as stated within.

¶55

VSN II(CO) GMY(25/10/2021) SB(27/06/2022)

¶56

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

Manimegalai v. Tamizhazhagan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manimegalai v. Tamizhazhagan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Krishnasamy Gounder Vs C.Kuppusamy

D.Nanda Kumar Vs T.Usha Rani

M.Nithya,W/O P.Madheswaran Vs P.Madheswaran

Sumathi Vs Rajammal(died)

Zameel Ahmed Vs Jayashree Narayanan

C.V. Manigandan Vs Mr. C.V. Jayabalan