Dismissed¶5

Arappan (Died) v. M. Athammal,(Died) W/O. Late.

Madras HC16 Apr 2026AS(MD)/44/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Partition suit; daughters' share; intestate succession of Muthappan @ Karuppan and Chinnammal; 2/5th share in self-acquired schedules 1-16 and 2/15th share in joint family schedules 17-18; plea of ouster not pressed; joint enjoyment conceded; preliminary decree of Fast Track Mahila Court, Dindigul in O.S.No.6 of 2011 affirmed; Section 96 CPC appeal dismissed with no costs; legal representatives impleaded by order dated 17.03.2025; Madurai Bench of Madras High Court; A.S.(MD)No.44 of 2018.

What did the court decide?

None to the appellants; appeal dismissed with no costs, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed, leaving the trial court's judgment and decree intact. ¶5

Arappan (Died) Vs M. Athammal,(Died) W/O. Late. — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the appellants; appeal dismissed with no costs, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed, leaving the trial court's judgment and decree intact.

¶5

Issue for consideration

Whether the judgment and decree dated 31.10.2017 in O.S.No.6 of 2011, granting the plaintiffs 2/5th share in schedules 1 to 16 and 2/15th share in schedules 17 and 18, should be set aside on this appeal under Section 96 CPC. +1 more

¶prayer

Court's answer

On hearing learned counsel on either side, the Court found no merit in the appeal and declined to interfere with the well considered judgment of the court below.

¶5

Ratio / Principle

The relationship between the parties is not in dispute; both persons from whom the right is claimed died intestate; and the plea of ouster was not pressed.

¶5

Key takeaways

Since the parties were in joint enjoyment and the persons from whom the right is claimed died intestate, the parties are entitled to a share in the suit schedule properties as per law; the court below had passed a preliminary decree only to that effect and no ground was made out to interfere with it.ratio¶5

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court, Madurai Bench — A.S.(MD)No.44 of 2018 and C.M.P.(MD)Nos.2273 of 2018 and 13533 of 2024, decided 16.04.2026 (G.R.Swaminathan and R.Poornima, JJ.; judgment delivered by G.R.Swaminathan, J.). First appeal under Section 96 CPC by the ninth defendant against the judgment and decree dated 31.10.2017 of the Fast Track Mahila Court, Dindigul in partition suit O.S.No.6 of 2011, whereby the daughters of Muthappan @ Karuppan were granted 2/5th share in schedules 1 to 16 (his self-acquired properties) and 2/15th share in schedules 17 and 18 (joint family properties of Muthappan @ Karuppan and his siblings). Held, dismissing the appeal: the relationship between the parties was undisputed and both persons from whom the right was claimed died intestate; the written-statement plea of ouster stood abandoned, the defendant having conceded at trial the joint family character of the property and joint enjoyment by all the children; the parties were therefore entitled to shares in the suit schedule properties as per law, and the trial court's preliminary decree, which granted only that relief, required no interference. Appeal dismissed with no costs; connected miscellaneous petitions closed. The original appellant Arappan died pending appeal; appellants 2 to 7 (his LRs) and respondents 33 to 36 (LRs of the deceased first respondent M.Athammal) were impleaded by common order dated 17.03.2025.

¶1

A.S.(MD)No.44 of 2018

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 16.04.2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN and THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA

¶6

A.S.(MD)No.44 of 2018

¶7

and C.M.P.(MD)No.2273 of 2018

¶8

and C.M.P.(MD)No.13533 of 2024

¶9

1.Arappan (Died)

¶10

2.Sarasu

¶11

3.Kumar

¶12

4.Anandakumar

¶13

5.Ravi

¶14

6.Raja

¶15

7.Tamil Selvi ... Appellants

¶16

(Appellants 2 to 7 are brought on record as LRs of the deceased sole appellant vide common order dated 17.03.2025 made in C.M.P.(MD)Nos.4631, 4634, 4636, 4637 & 4638 of 2025 in A.S.(MD)No.44 of 2018 respectively by GRSJ & MJRJ).

¶17

Vs.

¶18

1.M.Athammal (Died), Rep by her Special Power Agent, Pappathi.

¶19

1/7

¶20

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

¶21

A.S.(MD)No.44 of 2018

¶22

2.M.Pappathi 3.T.Ragunathan

4.T.Ramesh

5.S.Bhuvaneswari

6.T.Saravanan

7.T.Lakshmi

8.Malarmathi 9.Parvathi 10.Velkumar 11.Kamala

¶28

12.Renganayaki

¶29

13.Amuthavalli 14.Yasotha 15.C.Nagaraj 16.Ponnammal

¶30

17.Nallammal

¶31

18.Amsavalli

¶32

19.Ananthakrishnan 20.Rajalakshmi 21.Ayyapillai @ Kannammal 22.Chinnappan 23.Pappathi 24.Ramasamy 25.A.Sigamani 26.Murugesan

¶33

2/7

¶34

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

¶35

A.S.(MD)No.44 of 2018

¶36

27.Thangavel 28.Nataraj 29.Lakshmi 30.Sarala Amulraj 31.Saraswathi 32.Chinnammal 33.S. Anbukkennadi Shanmugam (Died) 34.Manimegalai 35.Jeevitha Karthika (Died) 36. Rathnamoorthi ... Respondents (Respondents 33 to 36 are brought on record as LRs of the deceased 1st respondent vide common order dated 17.03.2025 made in C.M.P.(MD)Nos.4631, 4634, 4636, 4637 and 4638 of 2025 in A.S.(MD)No.44 of 2018 respectively by GRSJ and MJRJ.)

¶37

Prayer : Appeal Suit filed under Section 96 of Civil Procedure Code, to allow this appeal by setting aside the judgment and decree dated 31.10.2017 made in O.S.No.6 of 2011 on the file of the Fast Track Mahila Court, Dindigul.

¶38

For Appellants : Mr.M.Suresh For Respondents : Mr.A.N.Ramanathan for R25 & R31 Mr.M.Divakaran for R2, R33, R35 & R36

¶39

3/7

¶40

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

¶41

A.S.(MD)No.44 of 2018

¶42

JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by G.R.Swaminathan, J.)

¶43

The ninth defendant in O.S No. 6 of 2011 on the file of Fast Track Mahila Court, Dindigul filed this appeal. The suit was one for partition. During the pendency of the appeal, the original appellant passed away and his legal heirs were brought on record.

¶44

2.The suit property comprises 18 schedules. Schedules 1 to 16 were the self-acquired properties of one Muthappan @ Karuppan. He married one Chinnammal. Through the wedlock, three sons (Thirumoorthy, Arappan and Chinna Thambi) and two daughters (Athammal and Pappathi) were born. Muthappan @ Karuppan died on 05.01.1993. He died interstate. Subsequently, Chinnammal also passed away on 27.06.1999. She also died intestate. Since the daughters were not allotted any share in the property, they filed O.S No.6 of 2011 claiming 2/5 th share in suit schedules 1 to 16. Schedules 17 and 18 were the joint family properties of Muthappan @ Karuppan and his siblings. The other defendants belonged to the other two branches. In respect of schedules 17 and 18, the plaintiffs sought 2/15 th share.

¶45

4/7

¶46

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

¶47

A.S.(MD)No.44 of 2018

¶48

3.The original appellant in his written statement pleaded ouster.

¶49

However, during the course of his evidence, he conceded that the property is a joint family property and that all the children of Muthappan @ Karuppan were in joint enjoyment. In other words, the plea of ouster was not pressed.

¶50

4.The second plaintiff / Pappathi examined herself as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A6. On the side of the defendants, the original appellant / Arappan examined himself as D.W.1 and two other witnesses were examined as D.W.2 and D.W.3 and Exs.B1 to B6 were marked. After considering the evidence on record, the Court below vide judgment and decree dated 31.10.2017 granted 2/5 th share in schedules 1 to 16 and 2/15 th share in schedules 17 and 18 in favour of the plaintiffs. Questioning the same, this appeal has been filed.

¶51

5.After hearing the learned counsel on either side, we are of the view that there is no merit in this appeal. The relationship between the parties is not in dispute. That the persons from whom right is claimed died intestate is also not in dispute. The plea of ouster was not pressed. It

¶52

5/7

¶53

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

¶54

A.S.(MD)No.44 of 2018

¶55

was also conceded that the parties were in joint enjoyment. In these

¶56

circumstances, the parties are entitled to a share in the suit schedule properties as per law. The court below had passed preliminary decree only to that effect. No ground has been made out to interfere with the

¶57

well considered judgement of the court below. This appeal stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶58

(G.R.S. J.,) & (R.P. J.,) 16.04.2026

¶59

NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No ias

¶60

To:

¶61

The Fast Track Mahila Court, Dindigul.

¶62

Copy to: