Karunanidhi v. Rajeswari
Case brief
What is this about?
In this second appeal, the High Court of Madras dismissed the plea of unsuccessful plaintiffs/challengers to set aside a decree in a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction regarding family land partition.
What did the court decide?
The second appeal stands dismissed, affirming the concurrent findings of the courts below; no order as to costs.
What the court decided
SA No. 229 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 23-03-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SOUNTHAR
SA No. 229 of 2026
- Karunanidhi, S/o Thiruppathi, Res at 55/42, East Street, Anichampalayam Village and Post, Paramathi, Velur Taluk.
- Senthil Kumar, S/o Thiruppathi, Res at 55/42, East Street, Anichampalayam Village and Post, Paramathi, Velur Taluk.
..Appellant(s)
Vs
- Rajeswari, W/o Rajendran,
- Devikarani, D/o Rajendran,
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the panchayat family arrangement document (Ex.A3) conclusively establishes the partition of the suit property in favour of the appellants.
Whether the evidence produced by the appellants sufficiently connects the local names in the partition document with the specific suit survey numbers.
Whether the lower courts rightly dismissed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction due to failure of the appellants to prove their title.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Karunanidhi, S/o Thiruppathi
- appellant
Senthil Kumar, S/o Thiruppathi
- respondent
Rajeswari, W/o Rajendran
- respondent
Devikarani, D/o Rajendran
- respondent
Mythili, D/o Rajendran
- respondent
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court