Dismissed¶28

Arumugam v. Chellathal

Madras HC25 Apr 2025SA(MD)/174/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Partition - second appeal under S.100 C.P.C - concurrent findings of trial court (O.S.No.1006 of 2022, Sub-Court Oddanchathiram) and first appellate court (A.S.No.81 of 2023, Fast Track Court, Palani) - plea of title by ouzer rejected for want of pleadings - claim of expenditure on improvements not established - no substantial question of law - appeal dismissed with no costs, connected C.M.P(MD)No.6604 of 2025 closed - Madras High Court, Madurai Bench, 25.04.2025 (K.K. Ramakrishnan, J.) - Arumugam v. Chellathal & Lingathal.

What did the court decide?

On the plea of acquisition of title by ouster, there are no pleadings; the courts below therefore correctly refrained from framing any issue on it, and they concurrently held that the plaintiff is entitled to a share in the suit property. ¶22

Arumugam Vs Chellathal — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶28

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellants acquired title to the suit schedule properties by way of ouster (question of law proposed by the learned counsel for the appellant). +2 more

¶21

Court's answer

¶22

Ratio / Principle

On the claim of expenditure incurred by the appellant to improve the suit schedule property, both courts considered the evidence and concurrently held that the appellant has not established that fact.

¶27

Key takeaways

In view of the concurrent findings of the courts below, this Court has no substantial question of law to admit the second appeal or to interfere with the judgment in A.S.No.81 of 2023 confirming the decree in O.S.No.1006 of 2022; the second appeal is dismissed with no costs and the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.ratio¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Second appeal under Section 100 of C.P.C against the concurrent judgment and decree of the Additional District Court (Fast Track Court), Palani in A.S.No.81 of 2023 (dated 24.02.2025) confirming the Sub-Court, Oddanchathiram decree in O.S.No.1006 of 2022 (dated 08.06.2022), whereby the 1st respondent was granted partition shares of 1/3 and 1/6 in the suit schedule properties. The appellant (1st defendant) raised a question of law that title was acquired by ouster; HELD, there were no pleadings on ouster and the courts below correctly framed no issue on that aspect, having concurrently held the plaintiff entitled to a share. The further contention that the courts below ignored the appellant's expenditure on improving the property failed, both courts having considered the evidence and found the fact unestablished. No substantial question of law arose to admit the appeal or interfere with the concurrent findings; the second appeal was dismissed with no costs and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.

¶1

S.A.(MD)No.174 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 25.04.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.K. RAMAKRISHNAN

¶6

S.A.(MD)No.174 of 2025 and C.M.P(MD)No.6604 of 2025

Arumugam

... Appellant

Vs.

Chellathal

¶11

Lingathal

¶12

... Respondents

¶13

Prayer: The Second Appeal has been filed under Section 100 of C.P.C, to set aside the judgment and decree made in A.S.No.81 of 2023 on the file of the Additional District Court (Fast Track Court), Palani dated 24.02.2025 confirming the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.1006 of 2022 on the file of the Sub-Court, Oddanchathiram dated 08.06.2022.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.D.Venkatesh For Respondents :

¶15

1/4

¶16

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

¶17

S.A.(MD)No.174 of 2025

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

This second appeal has been filed to set aside the judgment and decree made in A.S.No.81 of 2023 on the file of the Additional District Court (Fast Track Court), Palani dated 24.02.2025 confirming the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.1006 of 2022 on the file of the Sub-Court, Oddanchathiram dated 08.06.2022.

¶20

The 1^st defendant in the suit in O.S.No.1006 of 2022 has filed this appeal challenging the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.81 of 2023, wherein the 1^st respondent's case for the decree for the partition in respect of suit schedule properties in 1/3 and 1/6 is confirmed.

¶21

Here the question of law raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that they are acquired title by way of ouster.

¶22

This Court finds no pleadings in this aspect and hence both the courts below correctly have not framed any issues and both the courts below concurrently held that plaintiff is entitled to share in the suit property.

¶23

2/4

¶24

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

¶25

S.A.(MD)No.174 of 2025

¶26

The learned counsel for the appellant further submits that both the Courts below failed to consider the expenditure spent by the appellant to improve the suit schedule property.

¶27

In this aspect both the courts considered the evidence and concurrently held that he has not established the fact.

¶28

In view of that concurrent findings, this Court has no substantial question of Law to admit the second appeal and to interfere with the judgment in A.S.No.81 of 2023 on the file of the Additional District Court (Fast Track Court), Palani dated 24.02.2025 confirming the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.1006 of 2022 on the file of the Sub-Court, Oddanchathiram dated 08.06.2022. Accordingly, this second appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶29

25.04.2025

¶30

NCC :yes/No Index :yes/No Internet:yes/No rgm

¶31

3/4

¶32

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

¶33

S.A.(MD)No.174 of 2025

¶34

K.K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J.