Dismissed

Selvaraj v. Pachaiyammal

Madras HC17 Oct 2024SA/451/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Second appeal by the second defendant against concurrent decrees partitioning his deceased parents' self-acquired properties, giving the plaintiff sister a 1/3rd share. The High Court found no substantial question of law, holding oral partition and joint family property were not proved, and dismissed the appeal.

What did the court decide?

None; second appeal dismissed with no costs, connected civil miscellaneous petition closed.

Selvaraj Vs Pachaiyammal — Partition | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

S.A. No.451 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 17.10.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI

¶6

S.A. No.451 of 2024 and C.M.P.No. 13722 of 2024

Selvaraj

... Appellant

Vs.

Pachaiyammal

¶11

Arumugam

¶12

Thangavel

¶13

Ramesh

¶14

Dhurai

¶15

Sasikumar

¶16

.. Respondents

¶17

PRAYER : Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Code of Civil

¶18

Procedure, to set aside the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.46 of 2021 dated 19.09.2023 on the file of I Addl. District Judge, Namakkal confirming the judgment and decree in O.S.No.50 of 2014 dated 26.11.2020 on the file of Sub-Judge, Rasipuram.

¶19

¶20

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶21

S.A. No.451 of 2024

¶22

For Appellant : No appearance For Respondents : Mr.P.Mathivanan for R1 Mr. S.Thangavel for R2

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

The appellant, who is 2^nd defendant in the suit in O.S.No.50 of 2014,

¶25

which was filed by the 1^st respondent/plaintiff seeking for the relief of partition claiming 1/3^rd share in the suit property and other consequential relief and the same was decreed in favour of plaintiff. Against which, the 2^nd defendant preferred an appeal in A.S.No.46 of 2021 on the file of I Addl. District Judge, Namakkal and the same was also dismissed confirming the findings of the trial court. Now, challenging the concurrent findings of courts below, the 2^nd defendant preferred this Second Appeal.

¶26

Heard and considered the contentions of learned counsel for

¶27

respondents 1 and 2 and perused the materials available on record.

¶28

2/6

¶29

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶30

S.A. No.451 of 2024

¶31

Before the trial court, the 1^st respondent/plaintiff filed a suit seeking for the relief of partition claiming 1/3^rd share in the suit property stating that the properties in item Nos. 1 to 4 is belong to Mariammal, her mother by way of purchase and the properties in item nos. 5 and 6 is belong to her father. Her mother died on 19.08.2003 intestate and subsequently, her father also died on 13.02.2009. So, the legal heirs, the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 are entitled 1/3^rd share in the suit property. But, the defendants refused to give share. Hence, the suit was filed. Some of the property was leased out to tenants and 2^nd defendant, brother of plaintiff received the rent. Though there was a relinquishment was pleaded on the side of plaintiff was not proved, finally the trial court held that it is a joint family property, but it was not proved. Hence, the trial court rejected the defence claimed by defendants and accordingly, 1/3^rd share in the suit properties as well as measne profits was granted in favour of plaintiff. Against which, the 2^nd defendant preferred an appeal in A.S.No. 46 of 2021 and the first appellate judge also confirmed the findings of trial judge by independently analysing the facts and evidence

¶32

3/6

¶33

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶34

S.A. No.451 of 2024

¶35

on record. Furthermore, the first appellate judge held that the oral partition was also not proved, since there is a contradiction on the defence taken on the side of defendants 1 and 2 and accordingly, dismissed the appeal by confirming the findings of trial judge. Challenging the said concurrent findings of the courts below, the 2^nd defendant preferred this Second Appeal.

¶36

On perusal of records, it reveals that already the matter was referred for mediation, wherein, he is not cooperating to settle the issue. Today also, when the matter taken up for hearing, there is no representation on the side of appellant. As discussed above, before the trial court, the 2^nd defendant/appellant has not proved the oral partition and also not established the property as it is a joint family property. Admittedly, item Nos.1 to 4 of suit properties belong to plaintiff''s mother Mariammal and item Nos.5 and 6 of suit properties belong to his father. Both the properties are self-acquired properties, in which the plaintiff is entitled for 1/3^rd share. Hence, I do not find any merit in this Second Appeal as there is no substantial question of law involved. Accordingly,

¶37

4/6

¶38

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶39

S.A. No.451 of 2024

¶40

this Second Appeal is dismissed as devoid of merit. No costs. Consequently, connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶41

17.10.2024

¶42

Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Speaking/Non-speaking order rpp To

¶43

I Addl. District Court, Namakkal.

¶44

5/6

¶45

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶46

S.A. No.451 of 2024

¶47

T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.

rpp

S.A. No.451 of 2024

17.10.2024

6/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Selvaraj v. Pachaiyammal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Selvaraj v. Pachaiyammal

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

A.Srinivasan Vs R.Sundaravelu

Ponnusamy (Died) 1. R.Ganesan Vs G.Krishnan

Palani Vs Karuppan(died), Sarasal

Gunasekaran Vs Pethayammal

Kesavalu Naidu ( Died) Vs Kuppusamy Naidu (Died)

Haryni Alias Sri Haryni Prabhakar Vs R.Dinesh Kumar