IN THE COURT OF THE HON’BLE PRINCIPAL

SUBORDINATE JUDGE, MADURAI

A.S.(MD)No. of 2024

1. Varatharajan (Aged about 62 years)

S/o Subramani,
Door No.124-13, North Masi street,
Madurai-625001.

2. Dharmarajan, (Aged about 41 years)

S/o Subramani,
Door No.22/11, Athimoolampillai street,
North Masi street,
Madurai-625001.

3. Krishnarajan, (Aged about 41 years)

S/o Subramani,
Central Bank of India,
Rasimal Office, K.K.Nagar Branch,
Madurai-625020.

4. Shantha, (Aged about years)

W/o Subramani,
Door No.28/11, Athimoolampillai Lane,
North Masi street,
Madurai-625001. .. Appellants/ Defendants 1,4,5,6

Vs.
1. Nagarajan
S/o Subramani,
Door No.16 A, Athinarayanan Pillai Street,
North Avani Moola street,
Madurai 625001 .. Respondent No.1/ Plaintiff

2. Thiyagarajan,
Door No.28/11, Athimoolampillai Lane,
North Masi street,
Madurai-625001.

3. Soundarrajan,
Door No.88/8,
Keela Avani Moola street,
Madurai-625001 …. Respondents 2 and 3 /Defendants 2,3
ON APPEAL FROM THE SUIT DECREE AND JUDGMENT PASSED BY
THE III ADDITIONAL SUBORDINATE COURT, MADURAI IN
O.S.No.378/2015 DATED 01.03.2024

1. Nagarajan
S/o Subramani,
Door No.16 A, Athinarayanan Pillai Street,
North Avani Moola street,
Madurai 625001. .. Plaintiff

Vs.
1. Varatharajan
S/o Subramani,
Door No.124-13, North Masi street,
Madurai-625001.

2. Thiyagarajan
Door No.28/11, Athimoolampillai Lane,
North Masi street,
Madurai-625001.

3. Soundarrajan,
Door No.88/8,
Keela Avani Moola street,
Madurai-625001.

4. Dharmarajan,
S/o Subramani,
Door No.22/11, Athimoolampillai street,
North Masi street,
Madurai-625001.

5. Krishnarajan,
S/o Subramani,
Central Bank of India,
Rasimal Office, K.K.Nagar Branch,
Madurai-625020.

6. Santha,
W/o Subramani,
Door No.28/11, Athimoolampillai Lane,
North Masi street,
Madurai-625001. .. Defendants
 The Appellants above named prefer this Memorandum of Civil
appeal against the degree and judgment dated 01.03.2024 passed in
O.S.No.378 of 2015 by the III Additional Subordinate court,
Tiruchirappalli under section 96 and Order 41 of Civil Procedure Code
for the following amongst other grounds:

1. Address of the Appellants/ Defendants 1,4,5,6:

1.S. Varadharajan, Son of Subramani, Hindu, aged about 62 years and
residing at Door No:124-13, North Masi Street, Madurai-625001.

2.S.Dharmarajan, Son of Subramani, Hindu, aged about 41 years and

residing at Door No: 22/11, Athimoolampillai Street, North Masi
Street, Madurai-625001.

3.S.Krishnarajan, Son of Subramani, Hindu, aged about 41 years and

residing at Central Bank of India, Rasimal Office, K.K. Nagar Branch,
Madurai-625020.

4.Shantha, W/o.Subramani, Hindu aged about years and residing at

Door No.28/11, Athimoolampillai Lane, North Masi Street, Madurai.

For the service of summons, Notices etc, on the appellant are

stated above and their Counsels M/s. R.Manoharan, S. Rengasamy,
A.Kavitha, B.Ranjithkumar, P.Ramachandran, R.Priyanka, N.
Manikandan, Advocates having office at Plot No. 577, first floor, 3rd
Cross Street (West), K.K. Nagar, Madurai - 625 020.
2. Address of the Respondent’s/Plaintiff, Defendant 2 and 3:

1. S. Nagarajan, Son of Subramani, Hindu aged about 55 years and

residing at Door No: 16A, Athinarayanan Pillai Street, North Avani
Moola Street, Madurai-625001.
2. S. Thiyagarajan, Son of Subramani, Hindu, aged about 53 years and
residing at Door No:28/11, Athimoolampillai Street, North Masi Street,
Madurai-625001.

3. S. Soundararajan, Son of Subramani, Hindu, aged about 38 years

and residing at Door No:88/8, Keela Avani Moola Street, Madurai-
625001.

For the service of summons, Notices etc. on the respondents are

as stated above.

The appellant above named begs to prefer this Memorandum of

Grounds of Appeal against the Judgment and Decree dated 01.03.2024
passed in O.S.No.378 of 2015 on the file of the Learned III Additional
Sub Court, Madurai on the following among the other

GROUNDS
1) The judgment and decree of the Court below are completely contrary
to law, weight of evidence and the probabilities of the case.

2) The assumptions made, the presumptions drawn and the

conclusion arrived at by the Court below all are incorrect.

3) The Trial Court below should have dismissed the suit in its entirety.

4) The Trial Court ought to have held that the 6 th defendant is entitled
to her rightful share in the 2nd suit schedule property as it is a
Hindu Undivided joint family property. The 6th defendant being the
mother in the Hindu Joint Family is absolutely entitled to her
rightful share over the said property.
5) The Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of State of Maharashtra v.
Narayan Rao Sham Rao Deshmukh & Ors., reported in (1985) 2
SCC 321 held as follows:
“A joint family, however, may consist of female members. It may
consist of a male member, his wife, his mother and his unmarried
daughters.” It was further held that interest of a female member of a
joint Hindu family getting fixed, on her inheriting interest of
a deceased male member of the family. She would not cease to be a
member of family unless she chooses to become separate by
partition.”

6) The Trial court failed to consider that the 2 nd suit schedule property
was purchased from the income generated from the printing press
which is under joint ownership of the Hindu family. This has been
substantiated by the evidence of all the witnesses PW1, DW1 and
DW2. Hence the 2nd schedule property has been purchased from
the revenue of the plaintiff and all the defendants including the 6 th
Defendant. Hence mere absence of her name in the registered sale
deed cannot invalidate her rightful share during partition of the
Hindu joint family property.

7) The Trial Court ought to have noted that the 2nd defendant though
had rightful share in 2dn suit schedule property had obtained
Rs.75,000/- and executed a general release deed with respect to the
said property. It is true that the defendants 1,4,5,6 had raised this
contention only during the cross examination and no pleadings have
mentioned the same. But the Trial court ought to have considered
the fact that the 2nd defendant himself had admitted the execution
of the aforesaid release deed in another maintenance case in
M.C.No.10/2011 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court,
Tiruchirapalli. Hence the 2nd defendant cannot claim share over the
 2nd suit schedule property as it would constitute a clear case of
estoppel. But the court wrongfully ignored this contention of the
appellants herein by mechanically holding that the without
pleadings evidence cannot be accepted.

8) The Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of Premalata @ Sunita v.

Naseeb & Ors. [Civil Appeal Nos.2055-2056 of 2022] held that the
respondents – original defendants cannot be permitted to
take two contradictory stands before two different
authorities/courts. They cannot be permitted to approbate and
reprobate. Hence in the present case the trial court ought not to
have allowed the 2nd defendant to approbate and reprobate his
contradictory stance with regard to his share over the 2nd suit
schedule property.

9) The Trial Court also erred in admitting Ex.D2 Acceptance letter

written by 5 sons (Plaintiff and Defendants 1,3,4,5) of late
Subramanian to Thiyagarajan (2nd defendant) dated 28.01.2008
when the same was nowhere mentioned by the 2nd defendant in
his pleadings and the same had been observed in the impugned
order. When the court below had applied the principle of “Without
pleadings evidence cannot be accepted” for the aforementioned
issue, non-applicability of the same to the present issue is arbitrary
and inconsistent in the eyes of law. The said document produced by
the 2nd defendant ought not to have been considered by the court
below and the court ought to have dismissed the claim of share by
the 2nd defendant with respect to the 2nd suit schedule property
accordingly.
10) The trial court failed to consider the evidence of DW2/2 nd
Respondent himself having admitted as follows:

“என் முதல் மனைவி திருச்சி தலைமை நடுவர் நீதிமன்றத்தில்

MC.10/2011 தாக்கல் செய்திருந்தார் என்றால் சரிதான். நான் அந்த
வழக்கின் விசாரணையின் போது ஜீவனாம்சம் அளிக்க இயலாது
என சாட்சியம் அளித்துள்ளேன் என்றால் சரியல்ல. அந்த வழக்கின்
சாட்சியத்தில் பத்திரம் எழுதிக் கொடுத்து என் சகோதர்களிடம்
இருந்து ரூ.75,000/- பெற்றுக் கொண்டேன் எனவும் அந்த பொது
பாக விடுதலை பத்திரத்தின் நகலை எ.ம.சா.ஆ.1 ஆக குறியீடு
செய்துள்ளதாகவும் சொல்லியுள்ளேன் என்றால் என் மனைவிக்கு
வீடு கொடுக்க கூடாது என்பதற்காக வழக்கிற்காக அவ்வாறு பணம்
பெற்றுக் கொள்ளாமல் பத்திரம் எழுதிக் கொண்டோம்.”

11) The Trial Court ought not to have entertained the suit filed by the
plaintiff as he did not include the 6th defendant who is an
interested party to the partition suit and the same is liable to be
dismissed on this sole ground alone. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in
the case of Moreshar Yadarao Mahajin v. Vyankatesh Sitaram
Bhedi (D) The. Lrs. and Ors. reported in 2022 Live Law (SC) 802
held: “It could thus be seen that a “necessary party” is a person who
ought to have been joined as a party and in whose absence no
effective decree could be passed at all by the court. It has been held
that if a “necessary party” is not impleaded, the suit itself is liable to
be dismissed.”

12) In any view of the matters the judgment of the Trial Court is
wrong.
13) The Judgment is a classic case of non-application of mind and is
contrary to the principles established by law.

14) The Trial Court ought to have answered all the issues in favour of
the present appellants/Defendants 1,4,5,6.

15) The Trial Court below ought to have accepted the entire evidence
both oral and documentary on the side of the appellant and rejected
that of the defendant.

16) All other reasons assigned by the Trial Court in support of in

conclusion are factually unconvincing and legally insipid.

17) The Appellant reserves his right to file any additional grounds of
appeal if necessary in future.

Therefore, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to

set aside the Judgment and Decree dated 01.03.2024 passed in O.S.
378 of 2015 on the file of the Learned III Additional Sub Court, Madurai
by allowing the Appeal with cost and thus render justice.

PARTICULARS OF CLAIM

NATURE OF SUIT RELIEF GRANTED RELIEF PRAYED

1. Suit for partition Plaintiff granted ⅙ To set aside the

share in 1st and 2nd Judgment and Decree

suit schedule dated 01.03.2024

properties. passed in O.S. 378 of

6th defendant 2015 on the file of the

Learned III Additional
 declared not to have Sub Court, Madurai
right over the 2nd by allowing the First
suit schedule Appeal with cost
properties.

2. Suit for Permanent Permanent injunction

Injunction granted against the
defendants with
respect to the suit
schedule properties.

Rs.4,00,000
1. Value of claim
before Trial Court
Is court fee paid
thereof
U/s 37(2) TNCF Act.
Rs.750

2. Value of claim Rs.1000

before Trial Court
Is court fee paid
thereof
U/s 27 TNCF Act. Rs.75.50

Total Amount Rs.4,01,000/-

Total Court Fee paid Rs.825.50

(As per court fee paid
before Amended Act)

Now claimed as
 before this Appellate
court in

Total Value

Total Court fee paid

ADVOCATE APPELLANTS/ DEFENDANTS 1,4,5,6

Verification

We are the Appellants herein, do hereby declare that the facts

stated above are true to the best of my knowledge, information and
belief and to this effect We have signed this at Madurai on
13.03.2024.

APPELLANTS/ DEFENDANTS 1,4,5,6

DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY

1 வது லக்கச் சொத்து

மதுரை டி. மதுரை வடக்கு ரீடி, புதுமண்டபம் சப்டி, மதுரை டவுன்,

சர்வே வார்டு:8, வார்டு 13.12, தற்போது மாநகராட்சி வார்டு எண்:37 ஏ,
வடக்குமாசிவீதி, தென்புரம் ஆதிமூலம்பிள்ளை சந்து,
மெட்டுக்காரத்தெருவிற்கு தற்போது ஆதிமூலம்பிள்ளை சந்து, டோர்
நிர்: 11, வரிவிதிப்பு எண்: 68022 நிரில் கட்டுப்பட்ட டி.எஸ். 439 நிர் உள்ள
மனையிடத்திற்கு நான்குமால் விபரம்:
 வடக்கே: பூச்சிக்கோனார் மனைவீடு டி.எஸ்.413 நில் கட்டுப்பட்டது.

கிழக்கே : டி.எஸ். 438 நிரில் கட்டுப்பட்ட ஆதிநாராயணன் பிள்ளை

மனைவீடு

தெற்கே : டி.எஸ்.453 நிரில் ஆதிமூலம்பிள்ளை மனைவீடு

மேற்கே : டி.எஸ்.440, 441 நிரில் சேர்ந்த மனையிடமும்

5 அடி அகல பொது நடைபாதையும், டி.எஸ். 447 நிரில் கட்டுப்பட்ட

மனையிடமும்.

2 வது லக்கச் சொத்து

மதுரை டி, மதுரை வடக்கு பதிவு மாவட்டம், ஜாயிண்டு சப்டியைச்

சேர்ந்த மதுரை மாநகராட்சி சர்வே வார்டு:8 தற்போது மாநகராட்சி
எலக்சன் வார்டு: 37, வடக்குமாசிவீதி, டவுன் சர்வே எண்: 373
உள்ளதுமான மனைவீடு வடசரகில் பழைய டோர்: 124 நிருக்கு புது டோர்
124 ஏ நிருக்கு கட்டுப்பட்ட மனைவீடு வகையறாவுக்கு நான்குமால்:

வடக்கே : டி.எஸ். 374 நிர் தங்கசாமி சேர்வை பாக மனைவீடு.

தெற்கே: பெரியசாமி சேர்வை மனைவீடும், வடக்கு மாசிவீதியும்

கிழக்கே: வடக்குமாசிவீதி வரைபோகிற டி.எஸ்.375 நிர் தென்வடல் ஓடிய

சந்து.

மேற்கே: வடக்குமாசிவீதி வரை போகிற தென்வடல் ஓடிய சந்து.

இதற்குள்பட்டது மனை ஜாதியடியால் மாடிப்படிக்கட்டு இடம் உள்பட

கிழமேலடி வடபுரம் 356". தென்புரம் 35'6" தென்வடலடி மேல்புரம் 14,
கீழ்புரம் 14 உள்ள மனைக்கு மொத்த சதுரடி 497 உள்ள மனையில்
கட்டியிருக்கிற கெட்டி வீடு வகைறா சமஸ்தமும். மேற்படி சொத்தின்
மாநகராட்சி வரிவிதிப்பு எண்:67685 ஆக உள்ளது.

ADVOCATE APPELLANTS/ DEFENDANTS 1,4,5,6

 Verification

We are the Appellants herein, do hereby declare that the facts

stated above are true to the best of my knowledge, information and
belief and to this effect We have signed this at Madurai on
13.03.2024.

APPELLANTS/ DEFENDANTS 1,4,5,6

IN THE COURT OF HON’BLE PRINCIPAL

SUB JUDGE, MADURAI.

A.S.No. of 2024
 ========================
APPEAL
========================

Appellants/Defendants 1,4,5,6

1. Varatharajan
2. Dharmarajan
3. Krishnarajan
4. Santha

ADVOCATES

M/s. R. MANOHARAN
S. RENGASAMY
A. KAVITHA
B. RANJITHKUMAR,
P. RAMACHANDRAN
R. PRIYANKA
N. MANIKANDAN
Mobile No: 98943 44783

Respondent’s/Plaintiff and
Defendants 2 and 3
Thiru V. Harichandran,
A.C. Namburaj and Ors.