Appeal against dismissal of a partition suit claiming a 3/9th share in the grandfather's property. The court held that grama natham land occupied individually with patta is independent property, devolving on class-I heirs under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act; grandchildren whose father is alive are not class-I heirs.
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.
A.S..No.532 of 2025
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Date : 15.04.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR
A.S.No.532 of 2025 & CMP.No.8146 of 2025
Versus
Page 1 / 10
A.S..No.532 of 2025
PRAYER : Appeal Suit filed under section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure to set aside the decree and judgment passed on25.08.2015 in O.S.No.11 of 2012 on the file of the District Court, Kancheepuram District at Chengalpet and allow the suit.
For Appellant : Mr..Lakshmi Narayanan
JUDGMENT
Challenge has been made to the decree and judgment of the trial Court dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiffs claiming partition of 3/9th share in the suit property, in the present appeal .
Court.
Page 2 / 10
A.S..No.532 of 2025
wife died issueless. Gopal @ Mohan died leaving behind his wife and two sons
and two daughters, the defendants 3 to 6 herein, as his legal heirs.
Geneological Table
M.Veerabathiram Naidu [Deceased]
||
1. Krishnappa Naidu
died issueless||
2. Gopal @ Mohan Naidu
[deceased]||
3. V.Ranganathan
Naidu [D1]|
|---|---|---|
|a. [Wife of Krishnappa
Naidu deceased]|a. Krishnammal [D2]
W/o.Late Gopal Naidu|a. Lakshmi [deceased]
W/o.Ranganathan|
||b. Dhamodharan [D3]
S/o.Late Gopal Naidu|b. Sudhakara [P1]
S/o.V.Ranganathan|
||c. Dhanapackiyam [D4]
D/o.Late Gopal Naidu|c. Pushpa, [P2]
W/o.Balaji
D/o.V.Ranganathan|
||d. Dhanalakshmi [D5]|d. Bhuvaneswari [P3]|
||e. Purushotaman @
Maharaja
S/o.Late Gopal Naidu [D6]|W/o.Murali
D/o.V.Ranganathan|
The plaintiffs being the grand children of Veerabathira Naidu, they are entitled to 3/9th share. They had already filed a suit in O.S.No.216 of 2011 on the file of Page 3 / 10
A.S..No.532 of 2025
the District Munsif's Court, Chengalpet for declaration that the settlement made by the first defendant in favour of his illegally wedded wife as null and void and the same is pending. As the plaintiffs were not given any share from the ancestral properties, they had issued a legal notice to the first defendant on 22.07.2011. Hence, the suit.
Page 4 / 10
A.S..No.532 of 2025
under a registered partition deed and in the said partition, 'A' schedule property has been allotted to the first defendant and 'B' schedule property has allotted to the legal heirs of the deceased Gopal.
framed by the trial Court :
of the plaintiffs as alleged by the plaintiffs [or] the self acquired
properties of Ranganathan [D1] and Gopal as alleged by the defendants?
injunction as prayed for?
and Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.7 have been marked. On the side of the defendants, the first
Page 5 / 10
A.S..No.532 of 2025
defendant examined himself as D.W.1 and the third defendant examined himself as D.W.2 and no documents have been marked on their side.
and the appeal has now come before this Court. Be that as it may.
Page 6 / 10
A.S..No.532 of 2025
Whether the plaintiffs have any share in the suit property,
and the trial Court has committed error in dismissing the suit?
The very pleading in the plaint indicate that partition has been claimed on the ground that the property belonged to Veerabathira Naidu, the grandfather of the plaintiffs. It is not the case of the plaintiffs that the suit properties are ancestral in nature. When the property originally belonged to the grandfather and not an ancestral property, it has to held that it is only an individual property of their grand father. Though now it is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the property is originally classified as gram natham which was occupied by their grandfather and therefore, they are entitled to a share in the suit properties.
occupation of a grama natham land and patta has also been issued later, it has to be held that the property is an independent property, as long as there is no evidence to show that there was ancestral nucleus to acquire such property. In
Page 7 / 10
A.S..No.532 of 2025
such view of the matter, it has to be necessarily held that the property is an independent property of the said Veerabathira Naidu and after his death, the property devolved upon his class-I legal heirs, as per Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act. Such being the position, the first defendant is his class I legal heir and the plaintiffs being the grand children are not the class I legal heirs. As the father of the plaintiffs is very much alive, they are not class I legal heirs of their grandfather. In such view of the matter, I do not find any merits in this appeal. The point is answered accordingly.
15.04.2025
Index : Yes / No Internet: Yes Speaking/non speaking order
vrc
Page 8 / 10
A.S..No.532 of 2025
To,
Page 9 / 10
A.S..No.532 of 2025
N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.
vrc
A.S.No.532 of 2025
15.04.2025
Page 10 / 10
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the suit property was ancestral or the self-acquired property of Veerabathira Naidu, and whether grandchildren have a share when their father is alive?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
R.Sudhakar
B.Pushpa
M.Bhuvaneswari
V.Ranganathan
Krishnammal
Dhamodharan
N. Sathish Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
