S.Mani Vs Kallammal (Died) — Succession and Inheritance | Madras HC (2025)

S.Mani Vs Kallammal (Died) — Succession and Inheritance | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief to the appellant: Appeal Suit dismissed; Judgment and Decree dated November 27, 2020 passed in O.S.No.167 of 2014 by the learned Additional District Judge, Namakkal confirmed; parties to bear their own costs; connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition (CMP No.2412 of 2021) closed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Suit Properties are ancestral properties as alleged by the plaintiffs or separate properties as alleged by the defendants? +2 more

Court's answer

The defendants have not discharged their onus to prove that Suit Item Nos.1 to 4 are separate properties; the onus had shifted to them after the plaintiffs prima facie proved ancestry through the recitals in Ex-A.1 = Ex-B.3 Gift Settlement Deed and Ex-A.11 Sale Deed.

Ratio / Principle

This Court concurs with the Trial Court that Suit Item Nos.1 to 4 are ancestral properties; mere standing of revenue records/Patta in the name of Kalianna Gounder does not make them his separate properties.

Key takeaways

Suit Item No.5 (house on Grama Natham land) is the separate property of Kalianna Gounder, the Natham Patta having been issued in recognition of his occupation; the Trial Court rightly held so.ratio¶109
The pleaded oral family arrangement — Rs.40,00,000/- held in cash by Kalianna Gounder divided equally among the plaintiffs and defendants 1 and 2, in consideration whereof they consented to the Gift Settlement Deed in favour of the third defendant — is not proved; there is no evidence on record of the existence of the sum or its division.ratio¶120
In view of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, the plaintiffs, the defendants and Kalianna Gounder formed a coparcenary, each entitled to 1/7 share and interest in the coparcenary property.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (R. Sakthivel J., 09-07-2025; 2025:MHC:1666) dismisses the third defendant's Appeal Suit A.No.36 of 2021 and confirms the Additional District Judge, Namakkal's part-decree of 27-11-2020 in O.S.No.167 of 2014. Suit Item Nos.1-4 held ancestral in Kalianna Gounder's hands — recitals in Ex-A.11 Sale Deed (22-06-1989) and Ex-A.1=Ex-B.3 Gift Settlement Deed (15-07-2013) prima facie proved ancestry and the defendants failed to discharge the shifted onus (Patta/revenue records in the father's name inconclusive); Suit Item No.5 (house on Grama Natham land) held his separate property, Natham patta issuing in recognition of occupation. The pleaded oral family arrangement (Rs.40,00,000/- cash split equally — Rs.8,00,000/- each to plaintiffs and defendants 1 and 2 — with the properties going to the third defendant to avoid stamp duty) held NOT proved, the burden lying on its pleader (Kale (1976) 3 SCC 119; A.C.Lakshmipathy 2001 (1) CTC 112, affirmed in Korukonda Chalapathi Rao (2022) 15 SCC 475). Post-2005 Amendment, plaintiffs, defendants and father were coparceners with 1/7 share each (Vineeta Sharma (2020) 9 SCC 1); no actual partition pre-20-12-2004 and notional partition is not actual partition. Kalianna Gounder could convey only his 1/7 — the Settlement Deed is valid solely to that extent in Item Nos.1-4 and wholly qua Item No.5; pre-20-12-2004 alienations (Ex-A.10, Ex-A.11) saved by the proviso to s.6(1). Court Fee under s.37(2), TN Court-Fee and Suits Valuation Act held correct. Appeal dismissed; decree confirmed; parties bear own costs; connected CMP closed.

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Judgment and Decree dated November 27, 2020 in O.S.No.167 of 2014: suit decreed in part — Settlement Deed dated July 15, 2013 declared invalid/unenforceable as to the plaintiffs' 3/7 share in Suit Item Nos.1 to 4 with a preliminary decree for partition allotting 3/7 shares to the plaintiffs; Original Suit dismissed qua Suit Item No.5.¶15
Additional District Court, Namakkal ('Trial Court') · November 27, 2020
Prior proceeding
Plaintiffs (daughters of Kalianna Gounder) filed O.S.No.167 of 2014 seeking declaration that the Settlement Deed dated July 15, 2013 executed by their father in favour of the third defendant is invalid, and partition of the Suit Properties into six equal shares with three shares allotted to the plaintiffs.¶29
Prior proceeding
First defendant filed a written statement adopted by the second defendant; third defendant filed a separate written statement; plaintiffs filed a reply statement.¶36
Prior proceeding
Trial Court framed three issues, including entitlement to a preliminary decree of partition for 3/6 shares over the suit schedule property by metes and bounds.¶58
Prior proceeding
Full-fledged trial: second plaintiff examined as P.W.1 with Ex-A.1 to Ex-A.11 for the plaintiffs; second defendant examined as D.W.1 and third defendant as D.W.2 with Ex-B.1 to Ex-B.5 for the defendants.¶66
Prior proceeding
Trial Court concluded Suit Item Nos.1 to 4 are ancestral and Item No.5 separate; decreed the suit in part qua Item Nos.1 to 4, declaring the Settlement Deed unenforceable as to the plaintiffs' 3/7 share and passing a preliminary decree for partition (3/7 shares to plaintiffs); dismissed the suit qua Item No.5.¶67
Prior proceeding
Third defendant preferred this First Appeal under Section 96 read with Order XLI Rule 1 of the CPC against the part-decree.¶69
Prior proceeding
During pendency of the appeal, first respondent / first plaintiff Kaliammal passed away; respondents 6 and 7 (Sankaran. P and Periyammal) were brought on record as her legal representatives vide Order of this Court dated March 19, 2025 in CMP Nos.22860, 22882 & 22886/2024.¶23