As per case facts, the plaintiff (Venugopal) filed a partition suit for two properties, one inherited from his mother and another jointly purchased. The 1st defendant (Ramaiyan), through his legal ...
No Acts & Articles mentioned in this case
A.S(MD)No.248 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on : 01.04.2026
Pronounced on : 19.06.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VADAMALAI
A.S(MD)No.248 of 2021
Ramaiyan (Deceased)
1.R.Saathayee
W/o.Late.Ramaiyan,
No.105/80 Main Road,
North Veethi West Part,
Dharasuram Village,
Kumbakonam Taluk,
Thanjavur District.
2.R. Kumara Kurubaran,
S/o.Late Ramaiyan,
No.105/80 Main Road,
North Veethi West Part,
Dharasuram Village,
Kumbakonam Taluk,
Thanjavur District. ... Appellants/3
rd
Party
(Legal heirs of Ramaiyan)
Vs.
1.Venugopal,
S/o. Packirisami Servai,
No.1364/9, K.K.Neelamegam Nagar,
Melachatram, Valayappettai Village,
Kumbakonam Taluk,
Thanjavur District. ...1
st
Respondent/Plaintiff
1/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S(MD)No.248 of 2021
2.Valaiyammal @ Valaambal,
W/o.Swaminathan,
No.141D, Thanjavur Main Road,
Ammapettai Village,
Kumbakonam Taluk,
Thanjavur District.
3.Thiyagarajan,
S/o.Pazhanivel,
Nadu Salai, Yanaiyadi,
Valappettai Mangudi,
Darasuram,
Kumbakonam Taluk,
Thanjavur District.
4.Rani,
W/o.Ayyasami,
Thohur Village Post,
Opposite to the Police Station,
Thiruvaiyaru Taluk,
Thanjavur District.
5.Pappathi,
W/o. Murugesan,
Thohur Village Post,
Opposite to the Police Station,
Thiruvaiyaru Taluk,
Thanjavur District.
6.Selvaraj,
S/o. Swaminathan,
No.3/1234, Thanjavur Main Road,
Ammapettai Village,
Kumbakonam Taluk,
Thanjavur District.
2/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S(MD)No.248 of 2021
7.Mahadevan,
S/o.Swaminathan,
No. 141D, Thanjavur Main Road,
Ammapettai Village,
Kumbakonam Taluk,
Thanjavur District.
8.Pechimuthu,
S/o.Guruchandran,
Maravar Street, Darasuram,
Kumbakonam Taluk,
Thanjavur District.
9.Meenakshi,
W/o.Haresh Narayanan,
No.13/123C,
Kanagathara Apartments,
Masoothi Street, Saidapet,
Chennai.
10.Ananthavalli,
W/o. Anandhan,
Maravar Street, Darasuram,
Kumbakonam Taluk,
Thanjavur District.
11.Suba,
W/o. Sivandham,
No.105, Western Vadakku Veethi,
Darasuram, Kumbakonam Taluk,
Thanjavur District. ...Respondents 2 to 11/
Defendants 2 to 11
12.Shanmugavalli,
W/o.Gunasekaran,
D/o.Late. Ramaiyan,
Mangudi Swami Malai,
Kumbakonam Taluk,
3/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S(MD)No.248 of 2021
Thanjavur District.
13.Muthulakshmi,
W/o. Ravichandran,
D/o.Late. Ramaiyan,
Middle Street, Mangudi,
Swami Malai, Kumbakonam Taluk,
Thanjavur District. ...Respondents 12 & 13/3
rd
Party
(Legal heirs of Ramaiyan)
(Memo, dated 10.12.2024 in USR.No.46371 is recorded to
the effect that issuance of notice to R2, R4 to R11 is
dispensed with as they were set ex-parte before the Court
vide Court order, dated 19.12.2024 made in A.S(MD)No.248
of 2021)
PRAYER:- This Appeal Suit is filed under Order 41 Rule 1 r/w Section 96 of
CPC., to set aside the judgment and decree, dated 31.01.2020 made in
O.S.No.74 of 2015 on the file of the Additional District Judge (Fast Track
Court), Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District and allow the First Appeal.
For Appellant : Mr.N.Balakrishnan
For R1 : Mr.R.Raja Raman
R2, R4 to R11: Dispensed With
For R3, 12 & 13 : No Appearance
JUDGMENT
This Appeal Suit is directed against the judgment and decree, dated
31.01.2020 passed in O.S.No.74 of 2015 on the file of the learned Additional
District Judge (Fast Track Court), Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District.
4/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S(MD)No.248 of 2021
2.The appellants are Legal Heirs of the 1
st
defendant Ramaiyan in
O.S.No.74 of 2015 on the file of the Additional District Court (Fast Track
Court), Kumbakonam. The 1
st
respondent is the plaintiff and the respondents
2 to 11 are defendants 2 to 11 in that suit. The respondents 12 and 13 are other
legal heirs of the 1
st
defendant Ramaiyan.
3.The 1
st
respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for partition seeking
1/4 share in the 1
st
item and seeking 1/3 rd share in the 2
nd
item of in the suit
property and for directing the 2nd defendant to pay Rs.36,000/- towards his
share rental income and for permanent injunction.
4.For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank
before the trial Court.
5. The case of the plaintiff (1
st
respondent herein ) :-
The suit properties consist of two items. The 1st item was the absolute
property of one Pappathi Ammal. She died in the year 1948. On her death, her
husband, Packirisami Servai and sons, the plaintiff, the defendants 1 and 2 and
one Pazhanivel succeeded the same. The said Pazhanivel ran away from the
5/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S(MD)No.248 of 2021
home on the death of his mother Pappathi Ammal. The father, Packirisami
Servai, was running a Brass Pattarai in the 1st item of the suit property.
Then, he purchased the 2nd item for himself, earned in the joint names of
himself, plaintiff and the defendants 1 and 2. He constructed a small house in
the 2nd item of the suit property. The father Packirisami Servai, died on
14.01.1972 and he was running the Pattarai till his death with the assistance of
the plaintiff and the 1st defendant. Thereafter, the plaintiff was employed in
Thanjavur Sarvothaya Sangam. In the absence of Pazhanivel, the 1st defendant
was running the brass pattarai till the year 2000 and then closed the pattarai
and appropriated the entire income from it. The 2nd item of the suit property is
owned jointly by the plaintiff and the defendants 1 and 2. Since Pazhanivel
was unheard of, on a mutual temporary arrangement, the plaintiff has taken 3
cents in 1st item abutting Maravar Street and put up a thatched house. The 1st
defendant also put a thatched house in the middle portion of the 1st item. The
rear portion was let out to one Senthil. There was no effective partition of the
suit properties. In the year 2014, the defendants 1 and 2 colluded, and the 2nd
defendant executed a settlement deed in favour of the 1st defendant on
10.09.2014 to grab the plaintiff's share. Later, it was cancelled on 16.10.2014.
In respect of the 1st item, the plaintiff and the defendants 1 and 2 and
6/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S(MD)No.248 of 2021
Pazhanivel are entitled to a 1/4 share. Since Pazhanivel is no more, his
1/4 share goes to his children, i.e., the defendants 3 to 5. In respect of the
2nd item, the plaintiff and the defendants 1 and 2 alone are entitled to
1/3 share each. The defendants 1, 6 and 7 are trying to encumber the suit
properties. The defendants 6 to 10 have no right over the suit properties.
Hence, the plaintiff has filed the suit for partition.
6.The case of the 1
st
defendant :-
The relationship between the parties is admitted. The suit properties
mentioned in the plaint are not correct. The plaintiff has not added the house
property standing in his wife's name and the leasehold lands. The 1st defendant
alone was running the brass Pattarai for 25 years. The plaintiff was one year
old at the time of the death of his mother. The 1st defendant brought up the
plaintiff and educated him. The plaintiff got employment at Sarvodaya
Sangam. Twenty years back, a panchayat was convened and as per the said
panchayat, the 2nd item was allotted to the 1st defendant. The house in the first
item was allotted to the 2nd defendant. The house at K.K.Neelamegam Nagar
was allotted to the plaintiff. The elder son, Pazhanivel, got money for his share
and gone out of family. Hence, his children, i.e., the defendants 3 to 5, are not
7/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S(MD)No.248 of 2021
been entitled to any share. If any partition is ordered, this defendant may be
allotted his share.
7.The case of the 3
rd
defendant:-
The 2nd item was purchased by Packirisamy out of his own income and
he ran Brass Pattarai till his death on 14.01.1972. The said Pazhanivel being
the son of Packirisami, was entitled to a share in the suit properties.
The alleged family arrangement in 1980 will not bind this defendant.
This defendant is entitled to an equal share in the suit properties.
8.The defendants 2 and 4 to 11 remained exparte before the trial Court.
9.The trial Court framed the following issues upon the pleadings of both
parties.
(1) Whether the suit properties are joint
family properties?
(2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a
share as prayed for?
(3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to his
share of the rental income and future income as
claimed in the suit?
8/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S(MD)No.248 of 2021
(4) To what other relief is the plaintiff
entitled to?
Additional Issues:
(1)Whether the particulars of the suit
properties are correct?
(2)Whether the suit is bad for partial
partition?
(3)Whether the alleged oral partition
between plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2, as
alleged by the 1st defendant, is correct?
(4)Whether the plaintiff was ousted from the
suit property as stated by the 1st defendant, is
correct.
(5)Whether the 1st defendant is entitled to
share in the suit properties?
10.During the trial, the plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and marked
exhibits as Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.48. On the defendants' side, two witnesses were
examined as D.W.1 and D.W.2. No exhibit was marked on the defendants'
side.
9/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S(MD)No.248 of 2021
11.On appreciation of evidence and the submissions made on behalf of
the parties, the trial Court has held that the plaintiff was not ousted from the
suit properties; that the plaintiff has proved his possession, and that the
1st defendant has not proved oral partition. The trial Court passed preliminary
decree as sought by the plaintiff declaring that the plaintiff and the defendants
1 to 3 are entitled to 1/4 share each in the 1st item and that the plaintiff, the
defendants 1 and 2 are entitled to 1/3 share each in the 2nd item of the suit
properties and directed the 2
nd
defendant to pay a sum of Rs.36,000/- to the
plaintiff towards share in rental income and passed the decree of permanent
injunction as against the defendants 1, 2, 6 to 8 as prayed for by its judgment
and decree, dated 31.01.2020.
12.Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial Court, dated
31.01.2020, the two legal heirs of the 1st defendant Ramaiyan have preferred
this appeal.
13.The learned counsel for the appellants/LRs of the 1st defendant has
submitted that the plaintiff admitted in his evidence that he was working in
Sarvodhaya department and the 1st defendant was running the brass pattarai
10/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S(MD)No.248 of 2021
for 25 years, so the plaintiff was ousted from the joint family properties.
Since the plaintiff was out of possession for more than 25 years, he lost his
right as per Article 110 of the Limitation Act. The 1st defendant proved the oral
partition by adducing evidence. The trial Court has not properly appreciated
the evidence and erred in granting a preliminary decree. Therefore, the appeal
may be allowed.
14.Per contra, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent/plaintiff states
that the plaintiff has produced documentary evidence to prove his case about
the purchase of the suit properties by their father in his own name and in the
joint name of himself and his sons, the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2.
The 1st defendant has pleaded that an oral partition was effected in the
presence of panchayatdars, in which the plaintiff and the defendants 1 and 2
were allotted properties. But the defendants 1 and 2 have not examined any one
of the alleged panchayatdars and did not even examine themselves.
The 2nd defendant has not participated in the suit proceedings. The trial Court
has properly decreed the suit and therefore, there is no need for interference
upon the decision of the trial Court, the appeal may be dismissed.
11/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S(MD)No.248 of 2021
15. The point for consideration in this appeal are:
1.Whether the plaintiff was ousted from the suit
properties?
2.Whether the oral partition alleged by the 1
st
defendant is proved?
3.Whether the appeal is to be allowed?
16. Points 1 to 3:
On perusal of the appeal records, trial Court records and on
consideration of arguments advanced by both parties, the suit properties consist
of two items. There is no dispute that the 1st item of the suit property was
purchased by the mother of the plaintiff and the defendants 1 to 3, namely
Pappathiammal, by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 07.04.1936. The said
sale deed is marked as Ex.A.1. It is the case of the plaintiff that after the death
of the mother, their father, Packirisami, ran a brass pattarai till his death with
the assistance of the plaintiff and the defendants 1 and 2 and purchased the
2nd item from the income of the father in the joint name of the plaintiff and the
defendants 1 and 2. The plaintiff has marked the said deed as Ex.A.2.
From perusal of Ex.A.2, it is clear that the 2
nd
item was purchased in the name
12/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S(MD)No.248 of 2021
of the plaintiff and the defendants 1 and 2. This was not specifically denied by
the contesting defendants.
17.It is the main case of the 1st defendant that the suit properties were
orally partitioned in the presence of panchayatdars. A perusal of material
records and judgment of the trial Court, it is very clear that the 1st defendant
has not examined any one of the panchayatdars as rightly observed by the trial
Court. Even the defendants 1 and 2 have not entered the witness box to prove
their case. It is a settled position of law that when a litigant has not chosen to
enter into the witness box to give evidence and has not been subjected to cross
examination, an adverse presumption has to be taken against that litigant.
In this case, the defendants 1 and 2 have not examined themselves.
Moreover, the 2nd respondent remained ex-parte. Therefore, the trial Court
has rightly held that the oral partition was not proved by the defendants
1 and 2.
18.The main case of the appellants is that the plaintiff was working in
Sarvodhaya Sangam for the past 25 years and so, he was ousted from the joint
family properties. This argument is not an acceptable one. Since a joint family
13/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S(MD)No.248 of 2021
member is working in the department, it does not mean that he has left the joint
family and is ousted from the joint family properties. The plaintiff has
examined himself as PW1 and marked documents Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.48.
The 1st defendant’s case is that he brought up the plaintiff and got him married.
The marriage invitation of the plaintiff is marked as Ex.A.9, which clearly
shows that he is residing in the suit property. Therefore, the trial Court has
correctly appreciated the evidence and correctly held that the plaintiff was not
ousted from the suit properties. It is pertinent to note here that the other
LRs of the 1st defendant have not participated in the appeal proceedings to
support the case of the appellants. The other respondents also have not
participated in the appeal proceeding challenging the finding of the trial Court.
19.As discussed above, the plaintiff has clearly proved his case and the
trial Court has correctly passed a preliminary decree. Considering the above
facts and circumstances, the judgment and decree of the trial Court need not
warrant interference. The points are answered accordingly against the
appellants. Thus, this appeal suit fails.
14/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S(MD)No.248 of 2021
20.In the result, this Appeal Suit is dismissed.
(i) The judgment and decree, dated 31.01.2020 passed in O.S.No.74 of
2015 on the file of the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court),
Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District are confirmed.
(ii) No costs.
19.06.2026
NCC : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
VSD
To
1.The Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court),
Kumbakonam,
Thanjavur District
2.The Record Keeper,
Vernacular Records,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
15/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S(MD)No.248 of 2021
P.VADAMALAI, J.
VSD
Pre-Delivery Judgment made in
A.S(MD)No.248 of 2021
19.06.2026
16/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
In a significant development in property law, the recent **Partition Suit Judgment** delivered by the Madras High Court, specifically in A.S(MD)No.248 of 2021, reinforces crucial principles regarding joint family properties and the burden of proof for oral partitions. This **Madras High Court Ruling**, pronounced on June 19, 2026, and reserved on April 1, 2026, is now available on CaseOn, offering comprehensive insights into its implications for legal practitioners and students alike.
This case revolves around an appeal filed by the legal heirs of the 1st defendant, Ramaiyan, challenging a preliminary decree for partition issued by the Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Kumbakonam. The original suit, O.S.No.74 of 2015, was initiated by the 1st respondent/plaintiff, seeking a share in two items of suit properties and rental income.
The central questions before the court in this appeal were:
The case was decided based on established legal principles pertaining to partition, proof of ouster, and the evidentiary requirements for oral partitions. Key rules considered include:
The plaintiff (1st respondent) filed a suit for partition, claiming a 1/4th share in the 1st item of property and a 1/3rd share in the 2nd item, along with Rs. 36,000/- towards his share of rental income. The 1st item was the absolute property of Pappathi Ammal (the mother), which upon her death, was succeeded by her husband Packirisami Servai, the plaintiff, defendants 1 and 2, and another son, Pazhanivel.
The 2nd item was purchased by the father, Packirisami Servai, using his own income, but in the joint names of himself, the plaintiff, and defendants 1 and 2. Pazhanivel, who was unheard of, had his 1/4th share in the 1st item claimed by his children (defendants 3-5).
The 1st defendant's primary contention was that an oral partition had occurred approximately 20 years prior, allocating properties among the plaintiff, himself, and the 2nd defendant. He also argued that the plaintiff had been ousted from the joint family properties for over 25 years due to his employment elsewhere (Sarvodaya Sangam), thereby losing his right to a share under Article 110 of the Limitation Act.
However, the trial court's meticulous examination of the evidence led to several critical findings. The plaintiff, who testified as P.W.1, presented documents (Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.48), including his marriage invitation (Ex.A.9), which clearly indicated his residence in the suit property. This evidence countered the claim of ouster. Furthermore, the 1st defendant failed to produce any of the alleged 'panchayatdars' (arbitrators/community elders) who were supposedly present during the oral partition. Crucially, neither the 1st defendant nor the 2nd defendant, who were central to the claim of oral partition, chose to enter the witness box to give evidence. This lack of testimony, coupled with the absence of cross-examination, resulted in an adverse presumption against their claims, as rightly observed by the trial court.
The appellate court affirmed the trial court's reasoning, emphasizing that merely being employed in a different department does not automatically mean a member has left the joint family or has been ousted from its properties. The court also noted the significant absence of other legal heirs of the 1st defendant and other respondents in the appeal proceedings, further weakening the appellants' case. CaseOn.in offers concise 2-minute audio briefs, an invaluable tool for legal professionals to quickly grasp the nuances of complex rulings like this Partition Suit Judgment, ensuring they stay ahead with minimal time investment.
After a thorough review of the appeal records, trial court proceedings, and arguments, the Madras High Court upheld the preliminary decree passed by the trial court. The court found that the plaintiff had successfully proven his case, demonstrating his possession and countering the claims of ouster and oral partition by the 1st defendant. Consequently, the appeal suit was dismissed, and the judgment and decree dated January 31, 2020, in O.S.No.74 of 2015 were confirmed.
This **Madras High Court Ruling** confirms that the plaintiff (1st respondent) and defendants 1-3 are entitled to 1/4th share each in the 1st item of the suit properties. For the 2nd item, the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 are entitled to 1/3rd share each. Additionally, the 2nd defendant was directed to pay Rs.36,000/- to the plaintiff as a share of rental income, and a permanent injunction was granted against defendants 1, 2, 6-8. The court's decision underscores the importance of concrete evidence and active participation in legal proceedings, especially when asserting claims such as oral partition or ouster.
All information provided in this analysis is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. While efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, the content should not be used as a substitute for professional legal counsel. For specific legal guidance regarding your situation, please consult a qualified legal professional.
Legal Notes
Add a Note....