Dismissed¶32

A.Dharmalingam, v. Saraswathy

Madras HC18 Dec 2025CRP/6472/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Burden of proof - order of leading evidence - plaintiff averring ancestral properties bears initial burden to prove ancestry; direction to defendants to begin trial and lead evidence first is misconceived; suit for partition, 1/4 share, Class-I heir, Will; Article 227 Constitution of India; Madras High Court; S. Sounthar, J.; CRP dismissed, no costs.

What did the court decide?

Since the plaint averments themselves state that the suit properties were ancestral, the initial burden is on the petitioner/plaintiff to prove that the suit properties are ancestral. ¶28

A.Dharmalingam, Vs Saraswathy — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶32

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner/plaintiff, whose plaint averments state that the suit properties are ancestral, is entitled to a direction that the defendants begin the trial and lead evidence before the plaintiff leads evidence. +1 more

¶22

Court's answer

Since the plaint averments themselves state that the suit properties were ancestral, the initial burden is on the petitioner/plaintiff to prove that the suit properties are ancestral.

¶28

Ratio / Principle

The application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff seeking a direction to the defendants to commence trial is misconceived.

¶31

Key takeaways

The Trial Court's rejection of the application on the ground that the suit was very old is not sound, but this court agrees with the Trial Court's final conclusion on different reasoning.ratio¶31

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil Revision Petition (CRP No. 6472 of 2025) under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 25.10.2025 of the IV Additional District Court, Bhavani, in IA (CFR) No. 8041 of 2025 in S NO. 35 of 2018, whereby the plaintiff's application seeking a direction to the defendants to begin trial and lead evidence before the plaintiff was dismissed. The plaintiff claimed a 1/4 share on the averment that the suit properties were ancestral and that the 4th defendant had sold her undivided 1/4 share to him; the defendants pleaded that the properties were separate properties of the parents of Ramasamy Gounder, allotted to him as Class-I heir, and bequeathed by Will to defendants 1 and 3. Holding that where the plaint itself asserts the ancestral character of the properties, the initial burden of proving it lies on the plaintiff, the High Court (S. Sounthar, J.) held the application for directing the defendants to commence trial misconceived; it found the Trial Court's stated ground (suit being very old) unsound but agreed with its final conclusion on different reasoning. Revision petition dismissed; no order as to costs; connected miscellaneous petition (CMP No.31962 of 2025) closed.

¶1

CRP.No.6472 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 18-12-2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S. SOUNTHAR

¶6

CRP No. 6472 of 2025 and CMP No.31962 of 2025

¶7

A.Dharmalingam, S/o. Arunachalam, 13/42, Nadupalayam, Chithode Village, Erode Taluk and District.

¶8

Petitioner(s)

¶9

¶10

Saraswathy W/o. Late Ramasamy Gounder,

¶11

2.Dhavamani W/o. Thiyagarajan,

¶12

3.Eswaramoorthy, S/o. Ramasamy Gounder, respondents 1 to 3 resing at Sukkadan Thottam, Chinnathambipalayam, Nagalur Post, Anthiyur Taluk, Erode-501.

¶13

4.Jothimani

¶14

W/o. Arunachalm, 9/4, STC Residency, Lakshmi Theatre Road, Chithode Post, Erode Taluk, Erode-102.

¶15

Respondent(s)

¶16

1/5

¶17

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

¶18

CRP.No.6472 of 2025

¶19

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India praying to set aside the petition order dated 25.10.2025 passed by the Learned IV Additional District Court, Bhavani in IA (CFR) No. 8041 of 2025 in S NO. 35 of 2018.

¶20

For Petitioner(s): Mr.L. MOULI

¶21

ORDER

¶22

This Civil Revision Petition is filed, challenging the order passed by the Trial Court, dismissing the application filed by the petitioner, seeking direction to the defendants to begin trial and lead evidence, even before the plaintiff lead evidence.

¶23

The petitioner herein/plaintiff filed a suit for partition against the defendants. The petitioner is grand son of first defendant and son of 4^th defendant. The defendants 2 to 4 are daughters and son of first defendant and siblings of 4^th defendant. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the suit properties are ancestral properties of the defendants and the 4^th defendant sold her own undivided ¼ share in favour of the plaintiff and hence, the suit was laid for partition seeking ¼ share in the suit property. 2/5

¶24

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

¶25

CRP.No.6472 of 2025

¶26

The first defendant filed a written statement and the same was adopted

¶27

by the defendants 2 and 3. It was the case of the respondents/defendants that the properties including the suit properties are separate properties of the parents of Ramasamy Gounder and the suit property was allotted to the share of Ramasamy Gounder as Class-I heir. It was the further case of the defendants 1 to 3 that the said Ramasamy Gounder is husband of first defendant and he executed a Will bequeathing the suit property in favour of defendants 1 and 3 and as such, the 4^th defendant had no right to alienate any portion of the suit property in favour of the petitioner.

¶28

The petitioner filed the instant application seeking direction to the defendants to begin trial by leading evidence. If the contention of the defendants that the suit property was self acquired property is admitted by the petitioner/plaintiff, he is entitled to seek direction to the defendants to lead evidence and prove the case. On the other hand, in the plaint averments, the petitioner/plaintiff stated that the suit properties were ancestral properties and hence, the plaintiff is entitled to ¼ share in the suit property. Therefore, the initial burden is on him to prove that the suit properties are ancestral

¶29

3/5

¶30

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

¶31

CRP.No.6472 of 2025 properties. In such circumstances, the application filed by the petitioner/ plaintiff seeking a direction to the defendants to commence trial is misconceived. Though the Trial Court’s rejection of the application on the ground that the suit was very old one and hence, the request of the petitioner could not be considered is not sound, this court is in agreement with the final conclusion of the Trial Court, on different reasoning.

¶32