Second appeal against dismissal of a suit for partition. The court held that since a prior oral partition existed and other properties were already allotted, claiming partial partition remained in joint hands was unfounded. Appeal dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
SA No. 325 of 2008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 13-02-2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR
SA No. 325 of 2008
Appellant(s)
Vs
10.Jagadammal W/o.Ponnurangam
11.MAHESWARI(died) W/o.Shanmugam
SA No. 325 of 2008
S/o.Ponnurangam
13.Kamatchi W/o.Selvaraj
14.Dharmarajan S/O.PONNURANGAM, 10 TO 14 RESIDING AT 1/186, KADHIRMANGALAM VILLAGE AND POST, THIRUPPATHUR TALUK, PINCODE-635601 r1 died, rr10 to 14 are brought on record as lrs of the deceased r1 vide court order dated 13/08/2024 made in cmp nos 1135,1139 and 1140 of 2019 in sa no 325 of 2008(TVTSJ)
15.Bala Dandapani
S/o. Late Shanmugam, D.No. 1/1, Pillaiyar Koil Street, Periyavarikam Village, Ambur Taluk, Thirupathur District. r11 died, rr15 is brought on record as lr of the deceased r11. r7 died, rr16 to 20 are brought on record as lrs of the deceased r7 vide court order dated 29/08/2024 made in cmp nos 18942,18945,18946,18947 of 2024 in sa no 325 of 2008(tvtsj)
16.L.Palanisamy
17.L.Nagarajan
18.L.Soundararajan
19.L.Vasanthi
20.L.Babu
S/o. Late.Lakshmana Gounder 118, Mariamman Koil Street, Periyavarikkam Village, Ambur Taluk, Vellore District. r11 died, rr15 is brought on record as lr of the deceased r11. r7 died, rr16 to 20 are brought on record as lrs of the deceased r7 vide court order dated 29/08/2024 made in cmp nos 18942,18945,18946,18947 of 2024 in sa no 325 of 2008(tvtsj)
SA No. 325 of 2008
Respondent(s)
PRAYER
Against the judgment and decree dated 6.11.2007 passed in A.S.No.30 of 2006 by the Sub-Court, Thirupatthur confirming the decree and judgment dated 03.04.2006 passed in O.S.No.210 of 1997 by the District Munsif Court, Thirupathur, Vellore District.
| For Appellant(s): | Mr.V.Anand for M/s.A.M.Packianathan Easter M.Rajaguru |
|---|---|
| For Respondent(s): | Mrs.Elizabeth Ravi (For R3 to R8 & R15 to R19) |
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by Mummineni Sudheer Kumar J.)
This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree in A.S.No.30 of 2006 dated 26.11.2007 passed by the Court of Sub Court, Tirupathur, Vellore District, confirming the judgment and decree in O.S.No.210 of 1997 dated 03.04.2006 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Thirupathu at the instance of the unsuccessful appellant/ unsuccessful plaintiff. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their status in the suit.
SA No. 325 of 2008
suit scheduled property admeasuring 1 acres 98 cents situated in S.No.136/4 Kathirimangalam, Thirupathur Taluk, into three equal shares and for allotment of one such share admeasuring 0.66 acres to the plaintiff. During the pendency of the suit, the first defendant/ elder brother of the plaintiff passed away and accordingly, the defendants 4 to 10 were brought on record being the legal representatives of the first defendant/ Srinivasan.
SA No. 325 of 2008
the defence of the defendants 4 to 10, who are contesting defendants, is that there was an oral partition of the properties of Late Krishnammal, including the suit scheduled property, as early as in the year 1960.
SA No. 325 of 2008
SA No. 325 of 2008
and 2, taking into consideration the admission made by P.W-1 and D.W-1. Thus the trial court came to the conclusion that there was an oral partition and if at all the claim of the plaintiff is to be believed, it is for the plaintiff to establish that
the suit scheduled property was allowed to be continued in joint despite the oral partition in the year 1960, but, the plaintiff failed to establish the same. Thus, the trial court dismissed the suit. Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiff filed appeal in A.S.No.30 of 2006 as noted above and the said appeal also came to be dismissed by the lower appellate court on examining the entire material on record and conclusions arrived at by the trial court were confirmed. It is against the said concurrent judgments, the appellant plaintiff is before this court.
(i) Are the courts below right in holding that the suit property is hit by the rule of partial partition especially when the respondents 3 to 9 contend that the entire family properties were already partitioned?
(ii) Whether the courts below are right in holding that the suit property was already partitioned and allotted to the father of the respondents 3 to 9 especially when the Patta (Ex.A2) still stands in the names of appellants and respondents?
SA No. 325 of 2008
that the patta in respect of the suit scheduled property is still standing in the name of the plaintiff and the defendants 1 to 3 jointly and therefore, the theory of oral partition setup by the defendants 4 to 10 cannot be accepted. He also further contended that the question of partitioning orally of the property possessed by Late Krishnammal of the year 1960 i.e., during her lifetime, is totally false and does not arise at all. He also further contended that there is nothing on record to show that the said Late Krishnammal was allotted any share in the alleged oral partition of the year 1960 and therefore, the theory of oral partition is liable to be rejected. He also further contended that the Late Krishnammal/ Mother of the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3 not being coparcener of the joint family consisting of plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3, cannot throw the suit property into the hotchpotch of the joint family, thereby excluding herself from claiming share in the suit scheduled property. In support of his contention, he also placed reliance on a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of “Smt.Pushpa Devi -vs- the Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi” reported in 1977 AIR (SC) 2230 .
SA No. 325 of 2008
in the suit and there is no question of law nor substantial question of law that would arise for consideration before this court and all the conclusions that were recorded by the courts below are all on factual aspects which are not open for interference by this court in the second appeal under Section 100 of CPC.
SA No. 325 of 2008
suit scheduled property only. As it is now admitted that the Late Krishnammal was holding the other properties other than the suit property and as admitted by the plaintiff and the second defendant, there was no partition or any other arrangement in respect of those two properties, the suit filed for partial partition for one of the items is liable to be dismissed as rightly did by the courts below.
SA No. 325 of 2008
“ Having considered the decisions cited at the bar, it may be useful to have a fresh look at the doctrine of blending. The theory of blending under the Hindu law involves the process of a wider sharing of one's own properties by permitting the members of one's joint family the privilege of common ownership and common enjoyment of such properties. But while introducing new sharers in one's exclusive property, one does not by the process of blending efface oneself by renouncing one's own interest in favour of others. To blend is to share along with others and not to surrender one's interest in favour of others to the exclusion of
SA No. 325 of 2008
oneself. If a Hindu female, who is a member of an undivided family, impresses her absolute, exclusive pro- perty with the character of joint family property, she creates new claimants to her property to the exclusion of herself because not being a coparcener, she has no right to demand a share in the joint family property by asking for a partition. She has no right of survivorship and is entitled only to be maintained out of the joint family property. Her right to demand a share in the joint family property is contingent, inter alia, on partition taking place between her husband and his sons (see Mulla's Hindu Law, 14th Ed. p. 403, para 315). Under section 3 (2) and (3) of the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act, 1937 her right to demand a partition in the joint family property of the Mitakshara joint family. accrued on the death of her husband. Thus, the expression 'blending' is inapposite in the case of a Hindu female who puts her separate property, be it her absolute property or limited estate, in the joint family stock.”
SA No. 325 of 2008
are no merits in the second appeal, and no substantial question of law arise for consideration, and accordingly, the second appeal is dismissed. No costs. Connected applications, if any, shall stand closed.
13-02-2026
skr
Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes Neutral Citation:Yes/No
SA No. 325 of 2008
MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR J. skr
SA No. 325 of 2008
13-02-2026
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the courts below were right to dismiss the suit for partial partition given the admission of a prior full oral family partition.
Whether a Hindu female could treat her separate property as joint family property to exclude her own share in a partition claim.
Whether the second appeal raised any substantial question of law requiring interference under Section 100 of CPC.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Smt.Pushpa Devi -vs- the Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi 1977 AIR (SC) 2230Explained¶16
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Devaraji
Kamalammal
MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
