Second appeal against concurrent decrees in a partition suit. The court, noting a will executed by the first plaintiff was not disclosed to the first appellate court, settled the dispute by allotting two-thirds of the A-schedule property to respondents 3 to 6 and one-third to the appellants, and dividing the B-schedule items between them.
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.
S.A. No.561 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 03.01.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI
S.A.No.561 of 2023
and
CMP.No.17639 of 2023
1.Punitha
2.Ramya
4.Sivasankari
5.Rajkumar
...appellants
Vs
Sellammal (Deceased) Indhirani (Deceased)
1.Geetha
... Respondents
1\11
S.A. No.561 of 2023
PRAYER : Second Appeal filed Under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, against the Judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.98 of 2008 dated 28.04.2023 on the file of the III Additional District Court, Kallakurichi in confirming the judgment and decree made in O.S.No.935 of 2004, dated 13.04.2006 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Kallakurichi.
For Appellants : Mr.R.Jayaprakash For R1 to R2 : Insufficient address For R3 to R6 : Mr.A.Arumugam
JUDGMENT
The appellants have filed this Second Appeal against the judgment
and decree passed in A.S.No.98 of 2008 dated 28.04.2023 on the file of the III Additional District Court, Kallakurichi in confirming the judgment and decree made in O.S.No.935 of 2004, dated 13.04.2006 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Kallakurichi.
2\11
S.A. No.561 of 2023
perused the materials available on record.
were ranked in the suit.
along with a declaration that the B-scheduled property absolutely belonged to the 1st Plaintiff.
3\11
S.A. No.561 of 2023
court granted 2/3 share in favour of the plaintiffs and 1/3 share to all the defendants.
4\11
S.A. No.561 of 2023
enforce the will, the beneficiaries filed an application I.A No. 2790 of 2011 before the trial court. The trial court took the application on file and issued notices to the respondents/contesting defendants. To prove the will, one of the attesting witnesses was examined as D.W.2.
5\11
S.A. No.561 of 2023
During the pendency of the proceedings, Indhirani passed away, and her legal heirs were impleaded as Respondents 1 to 6. He further submitted that, regarding the execution of the Will, the respondents, who are beneficiaries of the Will, did not inform the Appellate Court. Therefore, he insisted that the matter be remanded to the Trial Court to prove the validity of the Will.
6\11
S.A. No.561 of 2023
7\11
S.A. No.561 of 2023
which also devolves upon respondents 3 to 6. Thus, they are collectively entitled to a two-thirds (2/3) share in the "A Scheduled Property." The remaining one-third (1/3) share is allocated to the Contested Appellants/ defendants (respondents 1 and 4 to 7), who are the mother and daughters.
As a result, regarding the B-scheduled property:
8\11
S.A. No.561 of 2023
9\11
S.A. No.561 of 2023
be no order as to costs.
03.01.2025
Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No Speaking/Non Speaking order
rri
To
10\11
S.A. No.561 of 2023
T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.
rri
S.A.No.561 of 2023
and CMP.No.17639 of 2023
03.01.2025
11\11
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the concurrent findings on partition shares and the B-schedule property could stand given a will allegedly not brought to the appellate court's notice.
How the A-scheduled and B-scheduled properties should be divided between the plaintiffs' side and the defendants' legal heirs.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Punitha
Ramya
Santhi
Sivasankari
Rajkumar
Geetha
T.V.Thamilselvi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
