First appeal by defendants against partial decree granting plaintiffs one-third share in partition suit. Madras High Court confirmed that properties were self-acquired of Duraisamy Naicker; settlement deeds over B-Schedule items 3, 6 and 8 were valid, but plaintiffs as heirs of predeceased daughter are entitled to one-third share in remaining properties.
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.73 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 04.03.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI
A.S.No.73 of 2017 and CMP.No.5317 of 2017
1.D.Selvaraj 2.D.Nagarajan
...Appellants
Vs
1.Jayashankar
2.Saritha Devi ... Respondents
PRAYER: Appeal Suit filed Under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, prayed to set aside the Judgment and decree dated 08.01.2013 in O.S.No.162 of 2008 on the file of the Principal District Court, Chengalpattu.
For Appellants : Mr.V.Srimathi For Respondents : Mr.D.Ashok Kumar
JUDGEMENT
The appellants have filed this appeal against the judgment and decree
dated 08.01.2013 passed in O.S. No. 162 of 2008 by the learned Principal
District Judge, Chengalpattu.
1\13
A.S.No.73 of 2017
they were ranked in the original suit.
the file of the Principal District Judge, Chengalpattu. The suit was filed by the respondents/plaintiffs seeking partition of their one-third share in the entire suit property.
and the defendants are the daughter and sons of one Duraisamy Naicker and
2\13
A.S.No.73 of 2017
Vengammal. Kanniammal passed away intestate on 14.11.2000, leaving behind the plaintiffs as her legal heirs. Her husband, Jayaraman, had predeceased her. After Kanniammal’s demise, the plaintiffs were brought up under the care of their maternal grandfather, Duraisamy Naicker, and their maternal grandmother, Vengammal. They were also permitted to reside in a portion of the A-Schedule property, and the income from the B-Schedule property was shared with them. On 09.12.2002, Duraisamy Naicker passed away, leaving behind his wife Vengammal, the defendants, and the plaintiffs as his legal heirs. Their grandmother, Vengammal, also passed away in 2007. Following this, the plaintiffs and defendants constituted a Hindu joint family and were jointly in possession of the suit properties. The plaintiffs remained in occupation of A-Schedule property and were paying taxes and electricity charges. However, defendants 1 and 2 colluded together and displayed a hostile attitude toward the plaintiffs. They refused to agree to an amicable partition despite receiving notice. Consequently, the plaintiffs filed the suit. The plaintiffs also reserved their right to claim onethird share of the rent collected by the defendants from the A and B- Schedule properties. They contended that the properties were ancestral in 3\13
A.S.No.73 of 2017
nature and that they were entitled to one-third share in the suit properties.
4\13
A.S.No.73 of 2017
evidence. On the plaintiffs side, 1st plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 and Exs.A1 to Ex.A18 were marked. On the defendants' side, 2nd defendant was examined as D.W.1 and Ex.B1 to Ex.B.3 were marked.
A.S.No.73 of 2017
possessed the A-Schedule property. Based on this, the trial court granted one-third share to the plaintiffs in the A-Schedule property.
6\13
A.S.No.73 of 2017
failed to prove the existence of an ancestral nucleus, without which the
relief granted in their favour by the learned trial judge is erroneous and liable to be set aside. Furthermore, he submits that there is no evidence of common enjoyment of the suit property concerning the one-third share granted in A-Schedule, making the judgement illegal and liable to be set aside. Additionally, the trial court failed to consider that the plaintiffs were in permissive occupation of a portion of the A-Schedule property. However, the trial court erroneously granted them one-third share as if they were in joint possession of the property. Therefore, he prays for the findings of the trial court to be set aside.
7\13
A.S.No.73 of 2017
Upon reviewing the grounds raised by the defendants, they have challenged the share granted to the plaintiffs in the A-Schedule property, particularly.
A.Whether the properties in question are ancestral or self-acquired?
B. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a share in the suit properties?
occupation, but there is no evidence to support this claim. On the other hand, the Anubandham and Enjoyment Certificate (Exhibits A-1 to A-3)
8\13
A.S.No.73 of 2017
clearly indicate that the plaintiffs and defendants jointly possessed and enjoyed the A-Schedule property, even though its nature was not properly described. Based on these documents, it is evident that the plaintiffs and defendants were in joint possession. Therefore, as legal heirs of Kanniammal, the plaintiffs are entitled to one-third share, which was rightly granted by the trial court and requires no interference from this court.
9\13
A.S.No.73 of 2017
were mistakenly described as ancestral property. However, in reality, properties are self-acquired properties, were purchased through sale deeds. The mere mention of "ancestral" in the plaint averment does not conclusively establish that the properties are ancestral. The sale deed produced by the plaintiffs clearly proves that the B-Schedule properties are self-acquired.
A.S.No.73 of 2017
Duraisamy Naicker's predeceased daughter are entitled to one-third share. The trial Court correctly reached this conclusion, and there is no need for interference.
04.03.2025
Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No Speaking/Non Speaking order
rri
11\13
A.S.No.73 of 2017
To
12\13
A.S.No.73 of 2017
T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.
rri
A.S.No.73 of 2017 and CMP.No.5317 of 2017
04.03.2025
13\13
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the suit properties were ancestral or self-acquired of Duraisamy Naicker?
Whether plaintiffs, as legal heirs of predeceased daughter Kanniammal, are entitled to one-third share?
Whether settlement deeds executed by Duraisamy Naicker in favour of first defendant were valid?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
D.Selvaraj
D.Nagarajan
Jayashankar
Saritha Devi
T.V.Thamilselvi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
