Dismissed¶¶62

Gnanammal (Died) 1. M.Siva Shanker v. a.Kalyanasundaram

Madras HC9 Feb 2026SA/98/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Second Appeal, Section 100 Civil Procedure Code, no substantial question of law, proof of will, Ex.A2, attesting witness P.W.3, testator unsound mind 1964, registered partition deed 1978 (dates variously 26.05.1978 and 25.06.1978), declaration of possessory right, reversal by first appellate court, Additional Subordinate Judge and Principal District Munsif Tiruvannamalai, plaintiff Gnanammal/A.Gnanambal (died), appellants M. Siva Shanker and M. Logeswaran, respondent R1 purchaser from Mathivanan, Madras High Court, dismissed, no costs, CMP No. 2884 of 2026.

What did the court decide?

None. Second Appeal dismissed with no costs; the findings of the first appellate court in A.S.No.21/2014 (Additional Subordinate Judge, Tiruvannamalai) confirmed; connected civil miscellaneous petition (CMP No. 2884 of 2026) closed. ¶¶62

Gnanammal (Died) 1. M.Siva Shanker Vs a.Kalyanasundaram — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶62

Issue for consideration

Whether the Will dated 29.06.1964 (marked Ex.A2) set up by the plaintiff was proved as required by law. +2 more

¶¶60

Court's answer

The Court proceeded on the footing that the claim made by the plaintiff based on the Will of the year 1964 was not proved, endorsing the first appellate court's determination that Ex.A2 was unproved (attestor P.W.3 unaware of the execution; testator not of sound mind).

¶¶62

Ratio / Principle

Since the properties stood already partitioned (registered partition deed, 1978) and the plaintiff had died, the relief sought by the plaintiff to declare right and title over the property was not sustainable and required no interference; nothing survived for consideration in the Second Appeal.

¶¶62

Key takeaways

With the plaintiff dead, nothing survived for consideration in the Second Appeal.ratio¶¶62
No substantial question of law is involved for consideration of the Second Appeal; accordingly the findings of the first appellate court stand confirmed and the Second Appeal is dismissed.ratio¶¶62

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (T.V. Thamilselvi J.) dismissed SA No. 98 of 2026 (with connected CMP No. 2884 of 2026), confirming the reversal effected by the first appellate court in A.S. No. 21 of 2014 (Additional Subordinate Judge, Tiruvannamalai) of the trial court's decree in O.S. No. 131 of 2009 (Principal District Munsif, Tiruvannamalai). Endorsing the appellate finding that the 1964 Will (Ex.A2) relied on by the plaintiff was not proved - the attesting witness P.W.3 being unaware of the alleged execution and the testator having lost mental ability in 1964 itself - and noting that the suit properties had already been divided by a registered partition deed in 1978 and that the plaintiff had died in the interim, the Court held the relief declaring the plaintiff's possessory right unsustainable, found nothing surviving for adjudication, held that no substantial question of law was involved under Section 100 CPC, and dismissed the appeal with no costs.

¶1

SA No. 98 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 09-02-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

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

¶6

SA No. 98 of 2026

¶7

AND

¶8

CMP NO. 2884 OF 2026

¶9

Gnanammal (died)

¶10

M.Siva Shanker S/o. A.Madhivanan, No.30 K2, New Karkaana Street,

¶11

Tiruvannamalai Taluk, Tiruvannamalai District.

¶12

M.Logeswaran S/o. A.Madhivanan, No.30 K2, New Karkaana Street, Tiruvannamalai Taluk, Tiruvannamalai District.

¶13

..Appellant(s)

¶14

¶15

A.Kalyanasundaram S/o.T. Arumugam Res at NO.32/HIB, Vettavalam Road Tiruvannamalai.

¶16

__________ Page1 of 8

¶17

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

¶18

SA No. 98 of 2026

¶19

2. K.Shanthi Sundaram

¶20

W/o.A.Kalyanasundaram Res at NO.32/HIB, Vettavalam Road Tiruvannamalai.

¶21

A.Madhivanan S/o.Arimuthu Naiker Kaattampoondi Village, Tiruvannamalai Taluk

¶22

Tiruvannamalai District

¶23

A.Arumugam

¶24

S/o.Arimuthu No.45, Sunnambukkara street Tiruvannamalai-606601.

¶25

A.Saminathan

¶26

S/o.Arimuthu

¶27

Res at Anna Nagar

¶28

Near Government School Vedanathham Village

¶29

S.Karthikeyan

¶30

S/o.Late Subramani Res at Anna Nagar Near Government School Vedanathham Village

¶31

S.Sellam W/o.Late Subramani Res at Anna Nagar Near Government School Vedanathham Village

¶32

__________ Page2 of 8

¶33

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

¶34

SA No. 98 of 2026

¶35

8. P.Murugan

¶36

S/o.Late Pachaiyappan No.3/94, Nakkiran salai 25th street, Mugaper East Chennai-37.

¶37

P.Rajendran S/o.Late Pachaiyappan NO.4/641, Kavitha Nagar, Kullapalayam Post Kobichettipalayam, Erode-638476

¶38

10.P.Nethaji

¶39

S/o.Late pachaiyappan Pathima Masil, No.150/309, 2nd Floor Lingu Chetti Street, George Town, Chennai-01

¶40

..Respondent(s)

¶41

PRAYER

¶42

Second Appeal filed under Sec.100 of Civil Procedure Code, praying to set aside the operation of the Judgment and decree dated 29.08.2025 made in AS No.21/2014 on the file of Additional Subordinate Judge, Tiruvannamalai, reversing the Judgment and decree dated 26.03.2014 made in OS No.131/2009 on the file of Principal District Munsif of Tiruvannamalai.

¶43

Page3 of 8

¶44

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

¶45

SA No. 98 of 2026

¶46

For Appellant(s):	Mr. K.Venkatasubban
	for M/s.Sarvabhauman Associates
For Respondent(s):	Mr.V.Raghavachari
	Senior Counsel For Ms.A.Pramila
	for R1 And R2

¶47

JUDGMENT

¶48

Challenging the reversal findings rendered by the first appellate court in A.S.No.21 of 2014 on the file of Additional Subordinate Judge, Tiruvannamalai arising out of the findings rendered in O.S.No. 131 of 2009 on the file of Principal District Munsif, Tiruvannamalai, the defendants 2 and 3 have preferred this Second Appeal.

¶49

For the sake of convenience, the parties are denoted as per the ranking in the suit.

¶50

Before the trial court, original Plaintiff A.Gnanambal filed a suit for declaration and other consequential relief, more particularly, to declare her possessory right as life interest holder over the suit properties. On receipt of summons, the defendants 1 to 3, 4 and 5 have contested the suit stating that the plaintiff has no possessory right over the suit properties and the claim made by her based on Will dated 29.06.1964 was not at all aware to them. They have also contended that already there was a partition held on 26.05.1978 between legal heirs of Aarimuthu Pillai and plaintiff Gnanambal. As per the partition, the properties were possessed and enjoyed by them eversince from the year 1978.

¶51

Page4 of 8

¶52

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

¶53

SA No. 98 of 2026

¶54

Now, the 1^st respondent herein is the purchaser of suit property from one Mathivanan, who is the one of sons of plaintiff and Aarimuthu Pillai. So, according to the contesting defendants, already the properties were offered to the sell in order to settle the debt incurred by one Mathivanan and with the consent of all the parties, the properties belong to the plaintiff was divided. They have also contended that the Will was not proved as per manner known to law.

¶55

Before the trial court, both parties adduced evidence and the trial court has granted the relief in favour of plaintiff. Aggrieved over that, the defendants 4 and 5 have preferred appeal in A.S.No.21 of 2014. On analysing the facts and evidence on record, the first appellate court framed points for consideration and finally held that the Will marked as Ex.A2 has not been proved and on the evidence of P.W.3, the Will was executed by the attestor not on the sound state of mind. Therefore, the first appellate court held that the Will was not proved and on the evidence of P.W.3, he was not aware of Testator, which was extracted by the first appellate court in paragraph 23, it would clearly shows that he was not known about the alleged execution of Will and he appeared and attested the signature, except that he was not aware of anything.

¶56

Furthermore, the plaintiff also admits that her husband Aarimuthu Pillai was not in a sound state of mind and he was mentally disturbed man and he has lost mental ability in the year 1964 itself. Therefore, the alleged evidence of D.W.1 itself shows that her husband was not in sound state of mind, besides

¶57

Page5 of 8

¶58

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

¶59

SA No. 98 of 2026

¶60

the evidence of P.W.2 not inspired the minds of the court and the Will is not proved beyond reasonable doubt.

¶61

Furthermore, the plaintiff herself stated that there was a partition held

¶62

in the family on 25.06.1978 among her sons, thereby entire properties were divided through a registered partition deed. Therefore, as on date, the properties were already partitioned in the year 1978 itself. In such circumstances, the relief sought for by the plaintiff to declare the right and title over the property was not sustainable one and it requires no interference. The plaintiff, who herself has right over the property and she claimed possessory right over the property while filing the suit. But, as on date, she also died. So, nothing survives for consideration in this Second Appeal, besides the claim made by the plaintiff based on the Will of the year 1964 was not proved and already the properties were partitioned and there is no dispute with regard to partition. So, the claim made by the plaintiff is sustainable one. Therefore, the findings rendered by the first appellate court in A.S.No.21 of 2024 on the file of Additional Subordinate Judge, Tiruvannamalai is confirmed and no substantial question of law is involved for consideration of this Second Appeal. Accordingly, this Second Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected civil miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶63

09-02-2026

¶64

Page6 of 8

¶65

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

¶66

SA No. 98 of 2026

¶67

Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No RPP To

¶68