First appeal against a decree granting each plaintiff a 1/4th share in partition of properties claimed as self-acquired by the deceased father. The court held ouster could not arise since suit was filed within 12 years and female heirs became co-owners on inheritance, and dismissed the appeal.
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.
A.S. No. 125 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 10.06.2024
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. SUBRAMANIAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. SAKTHIVEL
A.S. No. 125 of 2019 &
C.M.P. No. 5157 of 2019
K. Tamilarasan ..Appellant
Vs.
Prayer: First Appeal as against the judgment and decree dated
14.12.2017 passed in O.S. No. 66 of 2016 by the III Additional District Court, Salem.
For Appellant :: Mr.S. Vediappan
For Respondents :: Ms. Mithra Nisha for Mrs.V. Srimathi for R1 to R3
J U D G M E N T
1\8
A.S. No. 125 of 2019
(Delivered by R. SUBRAMANIAN,J.)
The 1st defendant in O.S. No. 66 of 2016 on the file of III Additional
District Judge, Salem, is the appellant herein.
2\8
A.S. No. 125 of 2019
the 1st defendant had perfected title by ouster. The 2nd defendant remained
ex parte.
'1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for partition and separate possession as prayed for?
2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for?
3. To what other relief?'
3\8
A.S. No. 125 of 2019
found that the defendants did not prove their claim of ouster and in any event, ouster will not arise since Kandasamy died only in the year 2007 and the suit came to be filed within 12 years in the year 2016. The theory that the plaintiffs were out of possession was also rejected. Since the original Will was not produced and no attesting witness was examined, Ex.A7 Will was disbelieved. On the above findings, the learned Trial Judge granted a decree for 1/4th share to each of the plaintiffs. Aggrieved by the same, the 1st defendant has preferred the present appeal.
appellant and Ms. Mithra Nisha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mrs.V. Srimathi, learned counsel for respondents.
4\8
A.S. No. 125 of 2019
share.
to the learned counsel, defendants 1 and 2 would be entitled to a larger share.
10. We have considered the rival submissions.
5\8
A.S. No. 125 of 2019
'Whether the contention of the appellant that he has perfected title by ouster can be accepted?'
12. It is the admitted case of the parties that on the death of Palaniammal, i.e,mother of Kandasamy, the property devolved on Kandasamy under Section 15 of The Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The property that was purchased by virtue of sale deed dated 06.03.1967 was the separate property of Kandasamy. Therefore, the entire properties are separate properties of Kandasamy. The suit 'B' Schedule property was assigned to Kandasamy by the Government and therefore, there is no question of treating it as an ancestral property or characterising it as any other property. It will be the self-acquired property of Kandasamy. Moreover, Kandasamy died in the year 2007 and the suit came to be filed within 12 years in the year 2016. Therefore, there is no question of ouster and the claim that the female heirs were not in possession of the property
would not arise since upon inheritance, they also became co-owners. Hence, we are unable to fault the Trial Court for having granted a decree
6\8
A.S. No. 125 of 2019
for partition in favour of the plaintiffs.
nv
(R.S.M.J.) (R.S.V.J.) 10.06.2024
Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order
To The III Addl. District Court, Salem.
R. SUBRAMANIAN,J.
7\8
A.S. No. 125 of 2019
AND
R. SAKTHIVEL,J.
nv
A.S. No. 125 of 2019
10.06.2024
8\8
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the appellant perfected title by ouster over the suit properties?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
K. Tamilarasan
P. Poongodi
R. Eswari
K. Saravanan
R. Subramanian
R. Sakthivel
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
