First defendant appealed in a partition suit, contending he had purchased the property and got patta issued in his father's name, and that his father was mentally unsound. The court found these contentions unproved; the father died intestate, so his children were entitled to equal shares. Second appeal dismissed.
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.
S.A.No. 305 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 28.02.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA
S.A.No. 305 of 2021 & C.M.P. No. 6106 of 2021
Anbu
...Appellant
Vs.
1.Sivagami
2.Rajkumari
3.Parvathi
4.Kalaiselvi ...Respondents
Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the Judgment and Decree dated 14.03.2019 made in A.S.No.44 of 2018 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri confirming the Judgement and Decree dated 07.03.2018 made in O.S.No.193 of 2014 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Uthangarai.
1/8
S.A.No. 305 of 2021
: For Appellant Mr. J.Pradeep. For Respondents : Mr. R.Nandhakumar.
J U D G M E N T
The 1st defendant in a suit for partition is the appellant before this
Court. The facts are very briefly set out herein below.
the appellant and the 1st respondent seeking a decree for partition. They would submit that the suit property belonged to one Kandasamy,
who is the father of the appellant and respondents. The said Kandasamy had died intestate on 06.12.2005 leaving behind him the appellant and the respondents as his legal heirs. Since he had died intestate, the respondents would submit that they are entitled to a share in the suit property. Despite their repeated request, the appellant was
not coming forward to partition the property and on 23.03.2010, they
2/8
S.A.No. 305 of 2021
had come into the suit property with rowdy elements to alienate the suit property which was prevented with great effort. Therefore, the respondents have come forward with the suit for partition.
that his father Kandasamy, was mentally unsound and that he has been taking care of him from a very young age and the property has been purchased by appellant herein and during the UDR proceedings, he had got his father's name included into the patta. Therefore, the respondents were not entitled to any share as they were given in marriage spending huge sums of money.
“1/jhth brhj;Jf;fs; thjpfs; kw;Wk;
gpujpthjpf;Fg; ghj;jpag;gl;l Tl;Lf;FLk;gr; brhj;Jf;fs; vd;w thjpfspd; Tw;W rupah>
2/jhth brhj;Jf;fspy; 1tJ thjpf;F 1-25
3/8
S.A.No. 305 of 2021
g';Fk;. 2 Kjy; 4 thjpfSf;F jyh 6-25 g';Fk; fpilf;fj;jf;fjh>
3/thjpfs; jhthtpy; nfhupa[s;sthW epue;ju
cWj;Jf;fl;lis gupfhuk; fpilf;fj;jf;fjh>
4/ntW vd;d gupfhuj;jpw;F>
Additional Issues:
1/thjpfs; jhth brhj;jpd; RthjPdj;jpy; ,y;yhjjhy; ePz;l fhyj;jpw;F Kd;ng mjpypUe;J mtupfs; ePf;fg;gl;Ltpl;ljhf
brhy;yg;gLk; gpujpthjpfs; Tw;W rupah>
2/jhth ePjpkd;w Ms;tiu kw;Wk; ePjpkd;wf; fl;lzj;jpw;fhf rupahf kjpg;gPL bra;ag;gl;Ls;sjh>
Ex.A.1 and Ex.A.2., which are the patta and chitta respectively standing in the name of the said Kandasamy. The 1st appellant
4/8
S.A.No. 305 of 2021
examined himself as D.W.1, the 1st respondent / 2nd defendant (in the suit) was examined as D.W.2. However, no documents have been filed on the side of the appellant.
the name of the said Kandasamy. However, the appellant would submit
that he had purchased the property but had got patta issued in the name
5/8
S.A.No. 305 of 2021
of his father, Kandasamy. However, the appellant has not proved this contention as well as his contention that his father was mentally challenged despite this claim being rejected by the respondents.
28.02.2024
Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No kan
6/8
S.A.No. 305 of 2021
To
2.The Subordinate Court, Uthangarai.
7/8
S.A.No. 305 of 2021
P.T. ASHA, J,
kan
S.A.No.305 of 2021
28.02.2024
8/8
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellant proved he purchased the suit property or that Kandasamy was mentally unsound, entitling him to exclude the respondents from a share.
Whether the courts below rightly decreed partition of property of an intestate among his legal heirs.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Anbu
Sivagami
Rajkumari
Parvathi
Kalaiselvi
P.T. Asha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
