S.Lakshmi Vs K.Ponnammal — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

S.Lakshmi Vs K.Ponnammal — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the appellant; the trial Court's decree allotting 1/2 share to the plaintiff stands; appeal dismissed with no costs and the connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition (CMP No.25375 of 2025) closed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the declaration of shares made by the trial Court in favour of the plaintiff is valid or not?

Court's answer

Ex.A5 shows that in 1998, after the death of Nagammal, a fresh Allotment Order was made jointly in favour of both the plaintiff and the 1st defendant, establishing that the plaintiff was recognised and jointly allotted the property.

Ratio / Principle

The 1st defendant's ouster claim was unsubstantiated: the facts stated above were not controverted by her, yet she adduced no evidence and did not subject herself as a witness in the suit.

Key takeaways

The trial Court rightly held that the 1st defendant failed to defend her case and has not perfected her title over the suit property.ratio¶57
This Court found that the trial Court rightly considered the evidence, that there is no infirmity in the trial Court's order, and that there is no merit in the appeal.ratio¶58

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court — AS No. 1054 of 2025 (with CMP No. 25375 of 2025), decided 10-04-2026; coram C.V. Karthikeyan and K. Rajasekar JJ., judgment delivered by K. Rajasekar J. Appeal under Section 96 of CPC by S. Lakshmi (first defendant in O.S. No. 9281 of 2021) against the judgment and decree of the XVII Additional City Civil Court, Chennai dated 27.06.2024, which decreed partition of the suit property (947 sq.ft. vacant plot allotted by the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board) and allotted 1/2 share to the plaintiff. Parties are sisters, daughters of the original allottee Nagammal (Ex.A1 allotment dated 24.01.1987; Nagammal died 1990; daughters inherited). The first defendant claimed she alone paid the installments, constructed a house, and held the entire property by ouster, but adduced no evidence — she did not enter the witness box, examine witnesses or mark exhibits. Ex.A5 showed a fresh Allotment Order in 1998, after Nagammal's death, jointly in favour of both sisters, recognising the plaintiff. HOLDING: the declaration of shares by the trial Court is valid; for want of any evidence or witness testimony by the first defendant, she failed to defend her case and did not perfect title by ouster; no infirmity in the trial Court's order. Appeal dismissed; no costs; connected CMP closed; Registry to draft the decree and forward records to the trial Court.

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Judgment and Decree in O.S.No. 9281 of 2021 granting decree for partition of the suit property and allotting 1/2 share to the plaintiff¶15
XVII Additional City Civil Court, Chennai · 27.06.2024
Prior proceeding
Suit property (947 sq.ft. vacant land) originally allotted by the 2nd defendant / Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board in the name of Nagammal, mother of the plaintiff and the 1st defendant, vide Ex.A1 dated 24.01.1987.¶23
Prior proceeding
Allottee Nagammal died in the year 1990; the plaintiff and the 1st defendant, her daughters and legal representatives, inherited the property.¶23
Prior proceeding
The 1st defendant refused to allow the plaintiff to enter the suit property, resulting in the filing of the suit for partition.¶23
Prior proceeding
1st defendant contested the suit claiming the entire sale consideration was paid by her in monthly installments and that she constructed a house on the plot, entitling her to a larger share.¶24
Prior proceeding
1st defendant claimed entitlement to the entire property on the principle of ouster, alleging the plaintiff had not claimed the property for a long time.¶28
Prior proceeding
At trial, the plaintiff examined herself as PW-1 and marked Exs.A1 to A9; the defendant did not enter the witness box, examined no witness and marked no exhibits.¶31
Prior proceeding
Trial Court framed five issues: ouster of plaintiff's claim by efflux of time; proper valuation of the suit; entitlement to preliminary decree; entitlement to permanent injunction; other relief.¶33
Prior proceeding
Considering issue Nos.1 to 3 jointly, the trial Court observed that the 1st defendant, despite claiming possession and payment of installments, did not enter the witness box, adduced no evidence and failed to prove her case.¶43
Prior proceeding
Trial Court accepted the plaintiff's case, decreed the suit and ordered allotment of 1/2 share; the 1st defendant thereupon filed this Appeal Suit challenging the judgment and decree.¶48