Suit for partition of ancestral land among heirs of Nanjappa Gounder; courts below held a 1969 panchayat partition had already divided the property. The High Court upheld those findings, noting the plaintiff's own admission of division and reliance on an unregistered koor chit for collateral purposes.
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.
2024:MHC:2037
SA.No.1610 of 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 16.04.2024
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
S.A.No.1610 of 2011
and
MP.No.1 of 2011
... Appellants
SA.No.1610 of 2011
10.Arumugam
11.Murugesan
12.Rangammal (Died)
13.Kaliyammal
14.M.Lokesh
15.M.Ponmani
16.V.Vijayalakshmi
17.S.Senpakam
(R13 to R17 brought on record as LRs of the deceased 7th respondent vide order dated 14.06.2022 made in CMP.Nos.4063 to 4065/2022)
18.P.Samiappan Palani
19.Nagammal
20.Masayal
21.Ramayal
(R18 to R21 brought on record as LRs of deceased 3rd respondent vide order dated 08.03.2023 made in CMP.Nos.23033, 23047 & 23050/2022)
23.Ponusamy
24.K.S.Kavitha
27.Karupayal
28.Saraswathy
(R22 to R28 brought on record as LRs of deceased 4th respondent vide order dated 08.03.2023 made in CMP.Nos.23041 to 23043/2022)
29.Sivaraman
30.Ambika
31.Gomathi
(R29 to R31 brought on record as LRs of deceased 12th respondent vide order dated 08.03.2023 made in CMP.Nos.23036 & 23040/2022) ... Respondents
Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree dated 30.06.2011 made in A.S.No.40 of
SA.No.1610 of 2011
2010 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Sathyamangalam confirming the judgment and decree dated 13.07.2010 made in O.S.No.233 of 2005 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Sathyamangalam.
For Appellants : Ms.G.Sumithra
For Respondents : Mr.A.V.Arun for R1, R2 & R6 R3, R4 & R7 – Died R5, R8 to R12-No Appearance Mr.Ma.Pa.Thangavel for R13 to R17 *****
J U D G M E N T
The plaintiff is the appellant herein. After his demise, his legal heirs were added as appellants 2 to 11. The defendants were arrayed as respondents herein.
to their litigative status before the Trial Court.
the suit property originally belongs to one Nanjappa Gounder. The plaintiff is the second son of Nanjappa Gounder. The defendants 1 and 2 are the legal heirs of one Karuppa Gounder, son of Nanjappa Gounder. Similarly, the
SA.No.1610 of 2011
defendants 3 to 8 are the sons of Nanjappa Gounder, and the defendants 9 to 12 are the legal heirs of Karuppa Gounder. It is the contention of the plaintiff that the suit property was originally belongs to Nanjappa Gounder and during his lifetime, he directed the plaintiff and the defendants to cultivate the lands temporarily, without allotting the specific shares amongh them. It was the contention of the plaintiff that the said shares were unequal and not by metes and bounds. The father of the plaintiff died intestate in the year 1981 leaving behind the plaintiff and the other defendants to succeed his properties. It is the contention of the plaintiff, that since the shares, which has been in enjoyment of the plaintiff and the defendants are not by metes and bounds, the plaintiff has come forward with a suit for partition to divide the suit property into 8 equal shares and to allot one such share to the plaintiff.
SA.No.1610 of 2011
boundaries and each of the sharers are in separate enjoyment of the property and that the Revenue records have also been mutated in accordance with the said division of the property. Therefore, it is the submission of the defendants that the plaintiff cannot maintain the suit for partition.
SA.No.1610 of 2011
share. Not satisfying with the judgment of the Trial Court, when the plaintiff approached the First Appellate Court, the First Appellate Court has also concurred with the finding of the Trial Court and dismissed the First Appeal. Aggrieved with the same, the plaintiff has approached this Court by way of the instant Second Appeal.
“(1) Are Courts below committed error in relying on the Ex.B1, the un-registered Panchayat Agreement and came to the conclusion that there was a partition between family members, based on Ex.B1?
(2) Whether Courts below are correct in admitting Ex.B1, the un-registered document only for collateral purpose but deciding the main issue of partition based on the unregistered document Ex.B1?
(3) Whether the Courts below, without considering the settled principles that separate enjoyment of the property between the parties for the sake of convenience is not a partition, are correct in holding that there was a partition between plaintiff and defendants?
(4) Whether the Courts below are correct in construing
SA.No.1610 of 2011
the Ex.B1 as partition deed ignoring the fact that it is only a panchayat agreement?”
SA.No.1610 of 2011
evidence, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 100 of CPC, this Court cannot interfere with such finding. Hence, prayed to dismiss the Second Appeal.
SA.No.1610 of 2011
Gounder and that mutation has been effected in the Revenue records. In pursuance of Ex.B1-Partition Agreement, the name of the respective sharers have been mutated in the Revenue records. Such finding of fact is based upon the documents submitted by the plaintiff. Therefore, though Ex.B1Partition Agreement is an unregistered document, notwithstanding its registration, the plaintiff has independently admitted the division among the family members. Which factum further vindicated through the Revenue records filed by the defendants.
Syed Malik Batcha (deceased and others Vs. Syed Ahamed Batcha and
others reported in 2004 (3) MLJ 480 , wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held that the unregistered Koor Chit can be relied for collateral purpose. But, the learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the factum of division cannot be construed as a collateral purpose. Both the Courts below have placed it finding based upon the admission made by PW1 in respect of the partition, which has been supported by the Revenue records. On the harmonious reading of the judgment of the Trial Court, the Court has relied Ex.B1 only for a collateral purpose, since the plaintiff
SA.No.1610 of 2011
himself admitted about the division of properties between the legal heirs. Therefore, this Court is of the firm view that the findings recorded by both the Courts below is not only based upon the Ex.B1, but also based upon the evidence of PW1. Hence, this Court could not find any perversity over such finding. In view of the above detailed discussion, the substantial question of law are answered in favour of the respondents.
order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also closed.
16.04.2024
kmi
Index : yes
Speaking Order
Neutral Citation Case: Yes
To
SA.No.1610 of 2011
C.KUMARAPPAN, J
kmi
S.A.No.1610 of 2011
16.04.2024
3 issues framed by the court
Whether an unregistered panchayat partition agreement can establish that a partition occurred among family members.
Whether concurrent findings of the courts below based on such an agreement and revenue records are perverse.
Whether separate enjoyment of property without division by metes and bounds amounts to a partition.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Syed Malik Batcha (deceased and others Vs. Syed Ahamed Batcha and othersRelied on¶15
2004 (3) MLJ 480
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Palani Gounder (Died)
Murugesan
Shanmugam
Arumugham
Ramasamy @ Vadamalai
Chinna Palani Gounder (Died)
C.Kumarappan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
