Dismissed

Nallappan Gounder(Died) v. Pavathal

Madras HC5 Feb 2026SA/244/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras dismissed second appeals in succession/partition suits. The Court upheld the lower court's confirmation of a final decree dividing jointly owned property based on the Commissioner's report, rejecting objections from appellants regarding survey discrepancies and the division plan. Appeals were disposed of with no costs.

What did the court decide?

The Second Appeals filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code were dismissed confirming the concurrent findings of the lower courts. No costs awarded to any party.

Nallappan Gounder(Died) Vs Pavathal — Partition | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

SA Nos. 244 of 2021 & 116 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 05-02-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI

¶6

SA No. 244 of 2021 & SA No.116 of 2026

¶7

SA NO.244 OF 2021

¶8

Nallappan Gounder(died)

¶9

Sengottaian,

¶10

S/o. Late Nallapppa Gounder

¶11

Porappannan

¶12

S/o. Late Nallappa Gounder

¶13

Thirumayee

¶14

W/o. Late Nallappa Gounder, All are residing at Rayapalayam Cusba, Kumilanparappu Village, Erode Tk And District.

¶15

..Appellant(s)

¶16

¶17

Pavathal

¶18

W/o. Palanisamy,

¶19

Res At, Kallapalayam, Avalpoondurai Village, Erode Tk, Erode District.

¶20

Annakodi

¶21

W/o. Mani, Res At, Kallapalayam, Avalpoondurai Village, Erode Tk, Erode District.

¶22

__________ Page1 of 11

¶23

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

¶24

SA Nos. 244 of 2021 & 116 of 2026

¶25

Thirumayammal

¶26

W/o. Perumal Gounder,

¶27

Rayapalayam Pudur,

¶28

Kumilanparappu Village,

¶29

Erode Tk And District.

¶30

Rathinammal

¶31

W/o. Narayanasamy, Solipalayam, Avalpoondurai Village,

¶32

Erode Tk And District.

¶33

Vimalasamy S/o. Sengodagounder,

¶34

At Rayapalayam Pudur Cusba, Kumilanparappu Village, Erode Tk And District.

¶35

V.Shanmugha Sundaram S/o. Vellamuthu Gounder,

¶36

At Rayapalayam Pudur, Cusba, Kumilanparappu Village, Erode Tk And District.

¶37

V.Subbulakshmi

¶38

W/o. Vellamuthu Gounder,

¶39

At Rayapalayam Pudur, Cusba, Kumilanparappu Village, Erode Tk And District.

¶40

Lakshmi

¶41

W/o. Late Sengoda Gounder,

¶42

At Rayapalayam Pudur, Cusba, Kumilanparappu Village, Erode Tk And

¶43

__________ Page2 of 11

¶44

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

¶45

SA Nos. 244 of 2021 & 116 of 2026

¶46

District.

¶47

Saraswathi

¶48

W/o. Ramasamy, Attayampalayam, Tiruchengode, Tiruchegode Tk, Namakkal District.

¶49

10.Samiyathal

¶50

D/o .Late Sengoda Gounder, Rayapalayam Pudur Cusba, Kumilanpparappu Village, Erode Tk, And District.

¶51

11.Vasanthamani W/o. Eswaran, At Rayapalayam Pudur Cusba, Kumilanparappu Village, Erode Tk And District.

¶52

12.Meyyarasi D/o. Eswaran,

¶53

At Rayapalayam Pudur Cusba, Kumilanparappu Village, Erode Tk And District.

¶54

13.Meyyarasan

¶55

So. Eswaran, At Rayapalayam Pudur, Cusba, Kumilanparappu Village, Erode Tk And District.

¶56

14.Chinnasamy

¶57

S/o. Kuppana Gounder,

¶58

At Rayapalayam Pudur, Cusba, Kumilanparappu Village, Erode Tk And District.

¶59

__________ Page3 of 11

¶60

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

¶61

SA Nos. 244 of 2021 & 116 of 2026

¶62

15.Thirumoorthy

¶63

S/o. Ramasamy Gounder, At Palakattu Thottam, Rayapalayam Pudur, Suriyampalayam Pudur, Village, Erode Tk And District.

¶64

..Respondent(s)

¶65

SA No. 116 of 2026

¶66

Thirumoorthy S/o Rangasamy Gounder, Palakkadu Thottam, Rayapalayam Pudur Village, Erode Taluk, Erode District

¶67

..Appellant(s)

¶68

¶69

Pavathal W/o Mani, Rayanpalayam Pudur, Kumilanparappu Village, Erode Taluk.

¶70

Annakkodi W/o Mani, Kalipalayam, Avalpoondurai Village, Erode Taluk

¶71

__________ Page4 of 11

¶72

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

¶73

SA Nos. 244 of 2021 & 116 of 2026

¶74

Thirumayammal W/o Perumal Gounder, Rayapalayam Pudur, Kumilanparappu Village, Erode Taluk.

¶75

Rathinammal W/o Narayanasamy, Solipalayam, Avalpoondurai Village, Erode Taluk.

¶76

..Respondent(s)

¶77

PRAYER IN SA No. 244 of 2021

¶78

Second Appeal filed under Sec.100 of Civil Procedure Code, praying to set aside the judgement and decree dated 29/08/2019 made in AS No.30/2016 on the file of I Addl. Sub Court, Erode confirming the fair and final order dated 18/03/2016 made IA.No.1080/2004 in OS No.1292/2004 on the file of Principal District Munsif Court, Erode

¶79

PRAYER IN SA No. 116 of 2026

¶80

Second Appeal filed under Sec.100 of Civil Procedure Code, praying to

¶81

set aside the judgment and decree made in AS No. 28 of 2017 dated 30.10.2023 on the file of the First Additional Subordinate Court, Erode, Confirming the Fair and Final Order made in IA No. 1080 of 2004 in OS No. 1292 of 2004, on the file of the Principal District Munsif at Erode dated 18.03.2016.

¶82

Page5 of 11

¶83

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

¶84

SA Nos. 244 of 2021 & 116 of 2026

¶85

SA No. 244 of 2021

¶86

For Appellant(s): Mr.S.Kaithamalai Kumaran For Respondent(s): Mr.S.Parthasarathy Senior Counsel For Mr.V.S.Kesavan For R1 To R4 And R6 Mr.C.Kulanthaivel For R15 R5, R7 And R8 - No Appearance R9 -insufficient Address R10 - Unclaimed R11 To R13 - Service Awaited

¶87

SA No. 116 of 2026

¶88

For Appellant(s): Mr.C.Kulanthaivel For Respondent(s): Mr.S.Parthasarathy Senior Counsel For Mr.V.S.Kesavan For R1 To R4

¶89

COMMON JUDGMENT

¶90

Challenging the concurrent findings of the courts below rendered in A.S.Nos.30 of 2016 and 28 of 2017 confirming the findings rendered in the final decree proceedings in I.A.No.1080 of 2004 in O.S.No. 1292 of 2004, the plaintiffs 1 to 3 have preferred Second Appeal in S.A.No.244 of 2021 and the 15^th respondent herein preferred Second Appeal in S.A.No.116 of 2026.

¶91

Before the trial court, the plaintiffs have filed a suit for partition and a

¶92

counter claim was also filed by the contesting defendants. On considering both side evidence and documents, the preliminary decree was passed allotting

¶93

Page6 of 11

¶94

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

¶95

SA Nos. 244 of 2021 & 116 of 2026

¶96

shares. Thereafter, the final decree application in I.A.No.1080 of 2004 was filed and the Commissioner was also appointed. The Commissioner had measured the property in the presence of both parties as well as their counsels. Thereafter,

¶97

the Commissioner had filed a report submitting a suggestion to divide the property conveniently considering each of sharers. Accordingly, the Commissioner's report along with sketch was produced before the court. Based on that, the trial judge had passed the final decree in I.A.No.1080 of 2004 by allotting shares to all the parties to the proceedings as suggested by the Commissioner for the convenient sake of parties. Aggrieved BY that findings, the plaintiffs 1 to 3 preferred an appeal in A.S.No. 30 of 2016 and the 15^th respondent herein preferred an appeal in A.S.No. 28 of 2017 on the file of I Additional Subordinate Judge, Erode respectively.

¶98

On hearing both sides, the first appellate judge held that objections raised by the plaintiffs 1 to 3 as well as 15^th respondent herein was not sustainable one. Accordingly, the appeals were dismissed by confirming the findings of trial judge. Against which, the plaintiffs 1 to 3 have preferred Second Appeal in S.A.No. 244 of 2021 and the 15^th respondent herein had preferred Second Appeal in S.A.No. 116 of 2026.

¶99

The learned counsel for appellants argue that while measuring the property, the Commissioner has not compared with old and new survey

¶100

Page7 of 11

¶101

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

¶102

SA Nos. 244 of 2021 & 116 of 2026

¶103

numbers and erroneously concluded that 12 cents belong to them in R.S. No.240/3. Therefore, they have raised objections, but it was not considered by the court below. Hence, they prayed to set aside the findings rendered in the final decree passed by the courts below.

¶104

By way of reply, the learned counsel for respondents 1 to 4 and 6 raised objections stating that even before the courts below, to substantiate their arguments, the appellants have not furnished any of the revenue records to show that they have owned the land on the southern boundary of the second item of suit property in R.S. No.240/3 and also not produced any relevant document to show the said southern boundary, without which the contention of appellants not to be accepted. Therefore, the courts below rightly disagreed with the objections raised by the appellants, which requires no interference.

¶105

Sisters of the plaintiffs, who are ranked as defendants 3 to 6 in the suit and from them, the purchaser/15^th respondent herein purchased a portion of property through sale deed. Therefore, he raised objections with regard to Commissioner's suggestion with regard to division of property and for the remaining extent, he filed a specific performance suit. He obtained a decree in respect of sale agreement. Therefore, he raised objections for the division of property as suggested by the commissioner as well as final decree passed by the trial court as such is not acceptable one for the reason that the larger extent

¶106

Page8 of 11

¶107

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

¶108

SA Nos. 244 of 2021 & 116 of 2026

¶109

allotted to the parties would not have been used for division among themselves. Therefore, he suggested to divide the property by laying pathway in the middle

¶110

of the suit property in order to divide the same into two items. However, the

¶111

suggestion given by the purchaser/15^th respondent herein also not acceptable one for the reason that if there is any inconvenience in enjoyment of property as

¶112

per the final decree, the court can cause interference, but on seeing the Commissioner's report as well as division of property as ordered in the final decree proceedings, it does not require any interference for the reason that all the sharers are allotted equal shares with pathway right and convenient enjoyment is clearly evidenced from the report of the Commissioner as well as final decree passed by the court below. Therefore, the objections raised by the both appellants and the purchaser/15^th respondent herein is unsustainable one. To that effect, the 15^th respondent herein had also preferred an appeal in A.S.No.28 of 2017 and it was disposed of accordingly.

¶113

Furthermore, as on date, according to sisters, they have preferred an

¶114

appeal against the judgment and decree passed in the suit filed for specific performance in S.A.No.314 of 2018, but it is between sisters and purchaser of the property. Therefore, without being influence of the findings rendered in the Second Appeal in S.A.No.244 of 2021, the purchaser/15^th respondent herein has to work out his remedy before the appropriate forum. Accordingly, the Second Appeal in S.A.No. 116 of 2026 is disposed of. No costs.

¶115

Page9 of 11

¶116

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

¶117

SA Nos. 244 of 2021 & 116 of 2026

¶118

In the result, the findings rendered by the first appellate court in

¶119

A.S.No.30 of 2016 on the file of I Additional Subordinate Judge, Erode confirming the findings rendered by the trial court in the final decree proceeding in I.A.No. 1080 of 2004 in O.S.No.1292 of 2004 on the file of Principal District Munsif, Erode is confirmed and the Second Appeal in S.A.No. 244 of 2021 is dismissed. The Commissioner's report as well as plan shall form part and parcel of the decree. No costs.

¶120

05-02-2026

¶121

Index: Yes/No

¶122

Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No

¶123

RPP

¶124

¶125

The I Additional Subordinate Judge, Erode.

¶126

The Principal District Munsif, Erode.

¶127

The Section Officer, VR Section, Madras High Court.

¶128

__________ Page10 of 11

¶129

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

¶130

SA Nos. 244 of 2021 & 116 of 2026

¶131

T.V.THAMILSELVI J.

¶132

RPP

¶133

SA No. 244 of 2021 AND SA NO. 116 OF 2026

¶134

05-02-2026

¶135

__________ Page11 of 11

¶136

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

Nallappan Gounder(Died) v. Pavathal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nallappan Gounder(Died) v. Pavathal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

G.Seenivasan Vs Kannammal

M. Anjappa Vs M.Murugesan

P.Vijay Anand Vs M.Arulselvan

Thirumoorthy Vs Pavathal

C.Raja Vs C.Selvaraj

Thirumoorthy Vs Pavathal