First appeal against dismissal of a suit seeking invalidation of a release deed and settlement deed and a partition decree. The appellate court held the plaintiff failed to prove the property was purchased by Calappa Mudaliar in his son's name; Ex.A4 was a payment for vacating, not a release deed.
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.801 of 2019
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 10.07.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
A.S.No.801 of 2019 and C.M.P.No.24673 of 2019
Sivapragasam (died) S/o.late Calappa Mudaliar No.728/130, 3rd Cross Street, Min Nagar, Vengikkal, Thiruvannamalai.
1.S.Tirougnanassambandane, S/o.Sivapragasam, No.18, Sundara Vinayagar Koil Street, Mudaliyarpet, Puducherry.
Appellant(s)
Vs
Selvaraj Residing at Old No.136, (New No.236, 238 & 240) Mahatma Gandhi Road, Muthiyalpet, Puducherry
Respondent(s)
First Appeal filed under Order XLI Rule 1 r/w Section 96 CPC to set aside the judgment and decree dated 30-08-2019 passed in O.S.No.83 of 2011 on the file of the III Additional District Court, Puducherry.
For Appellant(s): Mr.P.Veeraraghavan
Page 1 of 16
A.S.No.801 of 2019
For Respondent(s): Mr.S.Bhargavan JUDGMENT
Unsuccessful plaintiff has preferred the present appeal challenging the
judgment and decree dated 30-08-2019 passed in O.S.No.83 of 2011 on the file of the III Additional District Court, Puducherry.
in Doc.No.5569/10 is invalid and not binding on the plaintiffs and for preliminary decree for partition. The trial Court dismissed the suit.
Court.
had married one Sivagami and they begot five male children viz. Shanmugam, Sivapragasam/first plaintiff (died), Saravanan, Sithanandan and Balasubramanian. The defendant is the son of Shanmugam and grand
Page 2 of 16
A.S.No.801 of 2019
son of Calappa Mudaliar.
4.3 Calappa Mudaliar was a businessman engaged in imports and exports and he has owned huge properties and also purchased properties in the name of his eldest son viz. Shanmugam. There was no partition between the legal heirs of Calappa Mudaliar till date. The suit schedule property was purchased by Calappa Mudaliar in the name of his eldest son in the year 1957. Calappa Mudaliar died a long time ago leaving his male children as his legal heirs to succeed the suit property.
4.4 Sivaprakasam demanded his brother Shanmugam for an amicable partition and separate possession of the suit property. Shanmugam died on 03.06.2011 leaving the defendant as his legal heir. Sivaprakasam approached the defendant in the first week of July 2011 for partition. The defendant has informed the plaintiff that all the brothers of his father have already relinquished the property in favour of his father Shanmugam vide a release deed dated 14.12.1982. The defendant has also informed that his father has already settled the suit property in his favour through a registered settlement deed dated 27.12.2010. The alleged release deed dated 14.12.1982 and the settlement deed dated 27.12.2010 are not valid and not binding on the plaintiff. Hence the suit. Page 3 of 16
A.S.No.801 of 2019
5 The brief case of the defendant is as follows:
not leave any properties either ancestral or self-acquired. The Hindu Succession Act, 1956, was extended to Puducherry with effect from 01.10.1963 and the effect of extension repealed the then existing customary Hindu Law. The defendant denied that the suit property was purchased by Calappa Mudaliar in the year 1957 in the name of his eldest son Shanmugam.
5.2 Shanmugam got married in the year 1952 and he was employed in Government service. The suit schedule property was a self-acquired property of Shanmugam purchased from his own money by the French Notarial sale deed dated 05.10.1957. Shanmugam had availed loan from Puducherry Cooperative Housing Society by mortgaging the land of the suit property to construct a house thereon and executed a French Notarial mortgage deed dated 27.05.1961. Shanmugam had constructed a house and obtained electric and water connections in his name and he discharged the loan and got the mortgage deed redeemed on 03.08.1987. Shanmugam had accommodated his brothers Saravanan, Sithanadan and Balasubramanian to Page 4 of 16
A.S.No.801 of 2019
live with him in the suit property, while the other brother viz. Tirougnanassambandane/plaintiff lived elsewhere. While vacating the suit property, Saravanan, Sithanathan and Balasubramanian had executed a document dated 14.12.1982 purporting to be a release deed in favour of Shanmugam. Though the nomenclature of the said document stated to be the release deed, the execution has clearly acknowledged that the absolute ownership of the suit property in Shanmugam. As per the recitals of the said document dated 14.12.1982, the brothers of Shanmugam did not have any subsisting title over the suit property. Shanmugam had settled the suit property in favour of the defendant under registered settlement deed dated 27.12.2010 and since then, the defendant has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property as the absolute owner and no demand for partition was made either during the lifetime of his father Shanmugam or in the first week of July 2011 as alleged in the complaint. There is no cause of action for the suit and the same is vexatious one.
(1)Whether the settlement deed dated 27.12.2010 executed by Shanmugam in favour of the defendant is null and void?
Page 5 of 16
A.S.No.801 of 2019
(2)Whether the plaintiff is entitled to 1/5th share of the schedule mentioned property?
(3)Whether the plaintiff is entitled to mesne profit at Rs.5,000/per month from the date of plaint till date of delivery of possession?
(4)Whether the suit is bad for want of cause of action?
(5)To what other relief the plaintiff is entitled?
8. Findings of the trial Court:
8.1 The release deed in Ex.A4 dated 14.12.1982 executed by Saravanan, Sithanandan and Balasubramaniam in favour of Shanmugam, wherein, the recitals shows that three brothers have relinquished their right by receiving Rs.25,000/- each from the father of the defendant. PW1 admitted that at the time of execution of release deed in Ex.A4, except his Page 6 of 16
A.S.No.801 of 2019
father Sivapragasam, Shanmugam Saravanan, Sithanandan and Balasubramaniam and their father Calappa Mudaliar were residing in the suit property. So, the averment of the defendant that the released deed in Ex.A4 has been executed only for the purpose of vacating the other brothers from the suit property is acceptable one.
8.2 The plaintiff has not filed any document to show that the suit property has been purchased by Calappa Mudaliar in the name of his elder brother Shanmugam. That apart, the other properties owned by Calappa Mudaliar were not included for partition. Therefore, the suit property has been purchased by the hard earned money of the father of the defendant and the plaintiff has not right over the property. PW1 himself has admitted that he has not produced any document to show that Calappa Mudaliar had purchased various items of properties out of his earnings through his business.
whether the document in Ex.A4 is a release deed? and (b) whether the plaintiff is entitled for partition?
Page 7 of 16
A.S.No.801 of 2019
the following submissions:
must be given true legal effect and there is no ambiguity in the language employed in the deed.
Page 8 of 16
A.S.No.801 of 2019
respondent/defendant made the following submissions:
➢The father of the defendant got married in the year 1952 and he was employed in Government service and the suit schedule property was purchased from his own money by the French Notarial sale deed dated 05.10.1957 from Jayaram Gramani and Rajamanicka Gramani.
➢The father of the defendant had accommodated his brothers Saravanan, Sithanandan and Balasubramanian to live with him in the suit schedule property and therefore, the father of the defendant paid a sum of Rs.25,000/each to his brothers and amicably made them vacate from the suit property.
Page 9 of 16
A.S.No.801 of 2019
be the release deed.
➢In the said document, Saravanan, Sithanandan and Balasubramanian had acknowledged the absolute ownership of the suit property on Shanmugam, father of the defendant.
A.S.No.801 of 2019
Saravanan, Sithanandan and Balasubramanian.
A.S.No.801 of 2019
A.S.No.801 of 2019
deed and it is a document made for the receipt of Rs.25,000/- to vacate the brothers from the suit property. Ex.A4 is of the year 1982 and the same was challenged only in the year 2011, after the demise of Shanmugam.The initial burden of proof lies on the plaintiff has not been discharged. The plaintiff has failed to establish that the suit property was purchased by Calappa Mudaliar in the name of Shanmugam or it is the ancestral property. The trial Court has rightly concluded the lis between the parties. There is no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. The points are answered accordingly.
In the result, this First Appeal is dismissed by confirmed the judgment and decree dated judgment and decree dated 30-08-2019 passed in O.S.No.83 of 2011 on the file of the III Additional District Court, Puducherry. No costs. Connected C.M.P. is closed.
10-07-2025
nsd Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes Neutral Citation:Yes/No
Page 13 of 16
A.S.No.801 of 2019
To
The III Additional District Court, Puducherry.
Page 14 of 16
A.S.No.801 of 2019
M.JOTHIRAMAN J.
nsd
AS No. 801 of 2019
Page 15 of 16
A.S.No.801 of 2019
10.07.2025
Page 16 of 16
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the document dated 14.12.1982 (Ex.A4) is a release deed of joint family property?
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a 1/5th share in the suit property by way of partition?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Subhra Mukherjee and another Vs. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. and OthersRelied on¶18
(2000) 3 SCC 312 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sivapragasam (died)
Tirougnanassambandane
Selvaraj
M.Jothiraman
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
