P.S.M.T.Hameed Nazrutheen and 5 Others Vs P.S.M.T.Syed Abdul Rahman and 6 Others — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

P.S.M.T.Hameed Nazrutheen and 5 Others Vs P.S.M.T.Syed Abdul Rahman and 6 Others — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Application partly allowed: clauses (a) and (b) of Paragraph No.16 of the final decree dated 27.10.2025 directed to be deleted and replaced with new clauses allotting Item No.1 of the suit schedule property to the first plaintiff and Item No.2 to the first defendant, with the Registry directed to issue a fresh order copy to the parties; the prayer to modify the Item No.3 direction (drawal of lots only after removal of the building) was refused.

Issue for consideration

Whether clauses (a) and (b) of Paragraph No.16 of the final decree dated 27.10.2025 should be modified so that Item No.1 of the suit schedule property is allotted to the first plaintiff and Item No.2 to the first defendant. +1 more

Court's answer

The respondents' objections to the allotment of Item Nos.1 and 2 were not entertained: the Court had already given reasons for the allotments, and, taking into consideration that the first plaintiff holds 50% of the undivided share in Item No.1 and the first defendant holds 50% of the undivided share in Item No.2, the final decree dated 27.10.2025 was altered as regards Item Nos.1 and 2.

Ratio / Principle

Clause 16(a) of Paragraph No.16 was recast: Item No.1 of the suit schedule property is allotted to the first plaintiff.

Key takeaways

Clause 16(b) of Paragraph No.16 was recast: Item No.2 of the suit schedule property is allotted to the first defendant.ratio¶20
As regards Item No.3, the applicants' request to divide the property by drawal of lots with the building intact was rejected; the Court reaffirmed its earlier finding, based on the plan submitted by the defendants' Engineer and Architect, that it would be fruitful if the building is removed before division by drawal of lots, and no modification was made on this point.ratio¶21
In all other aspects of the final decree, no modification was required or made.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (K. Kumaresh Babu, J.), A.No.901 of 2021 in C.S.No.142 of 2019, decided 11.11.2025: At the final decree stage of a partition suit, the Court modified clauses (a) and (b) of Paragraph No.16 of its final decree dated 27.10.2025, allotting Item No.1 of the suit schedule properties to the first plaintiff (who held 50% of the undivided share therein) and Item No.2 to the first defendant (who held 50% of the undivided share therein), rejecting the respondents' objection that the final decree allotments should not be altered. The request that Item No.3 be divided by drawal of lots with the building intact (rather than after demolition) was declined: the Court reiterated that, on the plan submitted by the defendants' Engineer and Architect, division by drawal of lots after removal of the building was fruitful, since partial demolition could affect the adjoining structure. The Registry was directed to delete and replace clauses (a) and (b) in Paragraph No.16 and issue a fresh order copy; in all other respects the final decree stood unmodified.

A.No.901 of 2021 in

C.S.No.142 of 2019

A.No.901 of 2021

K.KUMARESH BABU, J.

This case is listed under the caption “For Being Mentioned” at the instance of the learned counsel for the applicants.

2. The learned counsel for the applicants submits in respect of Item No.1 of the suit property, first plaintiff holds 50% of the undivided share and in Item No.2, first defendant holds 50% of the undivided share. Therefore, in view of the reasons given with regard to Item Nos.1 and 2, Item No. 1 should be allotted to the first plaintiff and Item No. 2 should be allotted to the first defendant. That apart, he submits that i n item No.3 of the suit schedule property, it was agreed between the parties to divide the same by drawal of lots with the building intact and if any of the parties desires to demolish their share, it is open for them to demolish the same at that time. Therefore, there is no necessity for this Court to direct the drawal of lots only after removing the building. Hence he seeks to modify clauses (a), (b), and (c) in Paragraph No.16 of the order dated 27.10.2025 accordingly.

1/5

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

A.No.901 of 2021

3.The learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand objected to the suggestions made by the learned counsel for the applicants and he submits that the preliminary decree itself has been passed to divide the properties by metes and bounds in respect of all the suit schedule properties. Therefore, the allotments itself as envisaged by the Court in the final decree should be altered

in respect of Item Nos.1 and 2. In respect of Item No.3 of the suit schedule property, he submits that the property can be divided only after removal of the building, as demolition of the portion of the building by a person would affect the structure of the building of the other property which would not be in the interest of either of the parties. He also requested the Court to take into consideration the age of the building and the type of construction available in the land.

4.I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on either sides.

5.The objections raised by the learned counsel for the respondents with

regard to Item Nos.1 and 2 cannot be entertained for the simple reason that this Court has given reasons as to why Item Nos.1 and 2 should be allotted to the

2/5

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

A.No.901 of 2021 respective parties. Hence, taking into consideration that in Item No.1, the first

plaintiff has 50% of the undivided share and in Item No.2, the first defendant has 50% of the undivided share, the final decree dated 27.10.2025 with regard to Item Nos.1 and 2 of the suit schedule property shall stand alter in the following manner:

16(a) Item No.1 of the suit schedule property is allotted to the first plaintiff.

(b) Item No.2 of the suit schedule property is allotted to the first defendant.

6.As regards Item No.3, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents, this Court having considered the plan submitted by the Engineer and Architect of the defendants has found that it will be fruitful if the building is removed and the property is divided between both the parties b y drawal of lots.

7.For the aforesaid reasons, Registry is directed to delete clause (a) and

(b) in Paragraph No.16 and replace them with the clauses (a) and (b) as

indicated above and issue fresh order copy to the parties.

8.In all other aspects, no modification is required to be made.

3/5

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

A.No.901 of 2021

Sn

11.11.2025

K.KUMARESH BABU, J.

Sn

A.No.901 of 2021

4/5

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

A.No.901 of 2021

11.11.2025

5/5

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