K.PALRAJ vs C.KRISHNAVENI AMMAL
- Court
- Madras High Court
OSA Nos.18 & 19 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 02-11-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GK.MUTHUKUMAAR
OSA Nos.18 & 19 of 2024
CNR:{HCMA010097002024}
and CMP Nos. 2429 & 2441 of 2024
1. K.Palraj
2. K.Dhanasekaran
3. N.Murugeshwari
4. J.Chandra
5. K.Srinivasan
6. V.Kamala
7. K.Ramesh
8. J.Jayalakshmi @ Tamilselvi
9. Kaleeswari @ Kavitha
10.Kamesh
..Appellants in both
Vs
1. C.Krishnaveni Ammal
2. K.Chelliah Nadar
..Respondents in both
OSA No. 18 of 2024
Original Side Appeal is filed under Order XXXVI Rule 1 of Original Side
Rules read with Clause 15 of Letters Patent, to set aside the decree and
judgment dated 09.10.2023 passed in CS No.48/2018.
OSA No. 19 of 2024
Original Side Appeal is filed under Order XXXVI Rule 1 of Original Side
Rules read with Clause 15 of Letters Patent, to set aside the decree and
judgment dated 09.10.2023 passed counter claim in CS No.48/2018.
__________
Page 1 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 06:09:58 pm )
OSA Nos.18 & 19 of 2024
For Appellant(s): Mr.V.M.Venkataramana
For Respondent(s): Mr.N.K.Vanan
Common Judgment
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by N.Sathish Kumar J.)
These Original Side Appeals arise out of the judgment and decree dated
09.10.2023 passed in C.S.No.48 of 2018, one appeal challenging the decree in
the suit and the other challenging the decree in the counterclaim.
2. Since both appeals arise out of the same judgment and involve common
issues, they are taken up together and disposed of by this common judgment.
3. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are being referred to as per
their respective array in the suit.
4. The plaintiffs instituted the suit seeking a preliminary decree for partition
and separate possession of their 10/18th share in the suit property measuring
4,157 sq.ft., together with the superstructure thereon, situated at Tondiarpet
Village, Chennai. The property was purchased under Exs.P1 and P2, sale deeds,
dated 07.01.1981 and 08.01.1981 in the names of the first plaintiff and
Parameswari Ammal, the mother of the second plaintiff. The plaintiffs claimed
that the second plaintiff had arranged the sale consideration and that the other
__________
Page 2 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 06:09:58 pm )
OSA Nos.18 & 19 of 2024
family members had not contributed towards the purchase. Defendants 1 to 5, 7
and 10 resisted the suit and filed a counterclaim contending that the property
was purchased out of joint family funds and contributions made by the family
members. They relied upon the alleged joint family business, M/s. Kaleeswari
Gunny Stores and claimed that the family members had contributed money and
jewels towards the purchase. They sought a declaration that the property was
joint family property and claimed 24/27th share therein.
5. On the basis of the above pleadings, the learned Single Judge initially
framed the following issues:
(i) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to partition as prayed for?
(ii) Whether the suit property is a joint family property or the self-acquired
property of Kalasami Nadar?
(iii) Whether the defendants are entitled to any share? And
(iv) To what relief?
6. Subsequently, the issues were reframed with reference to the specific
shares claimed by the parties, as follows:
(i) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to get 10/18th share in the suit
schedule property?
__________
Page 3 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 06:09:58 pm )
OSA Nos.18 & 19 of 2024
(ii) Whether the suit schedule property is a joint family property as alleged
by the defendants?
(iii) Whether the defendants are entitled to 24/27th share as claimed by them
in the counterclaim?
(iv) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to get a preliminary decree as prayed
for?
(v) Whether the defendants are entitled to get a preliminary decree as prayed
for in the counterclaim? And
(vi) To what relief, if any?
7. During trial, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined on the side of the plaintiffs and
D.Ws.1 and 2 were examined on the side of the defendants. Exs.P1 to P15 and
Exs.D1 to D21 were marked.
8. Upon appreciation of the evidence, the learned Single Judge found that
Exs.P1 and P2 stood in the names of the first plaintiff and Parameswari Ammal.
While considering Ex.P3 mortgage deed dated 08.01.1981, the learned Single
Judge relied upon Clause 9, which stated that the other family members had
been included only as formal parties and had no right over the property. The
__________
Page 4 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 06:09:58 pm )
OSA Nos.18 & 19 of 2024
defendants had not produced acceptable evidence to establish their alleged
contribution towards the purchase consideration.
9. The learned Single Judge further found that the defendants had not
established the existence of the alleged joint family business or the availability
of sufficient joint family nucleus. No partnership deed, accounts or other
business records had been produced. The evidence of D.Ws.1 and 2 also
disclosed that their father had worked as a coolie in another store. The learned
Single Judge therefore held that the defendants had failed to prove that the
property was purchased out of joint family funds.
10. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that Exs.P3 and
P4, mortgage deeds showed that the family members had joined in raising the
mortgage amount and that the contributions made by them established that the
property was acquired for the benefit of the joint family. It was argued that the
learned Single Judge had failed to properly appreciate the said documents and
the appellants were entitled to an equal share.
11. Per contra , learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that
Exs.P1 and P2 clearly established that the property was purchased in the names
of the first plaintiff and Parameswari Ammal. It was further submitted that the
__________
Page 5 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 06:09:58 pm )
OSA Nos.18 & 19 of 2024
recitals in Ex.P3 specifically clarified that the other family members had joined
the mortgage only at the insistence of the mortgagee and that they had no right
over the property. In the absence of proof of contribution or sufficient joint
family nucleus, the claim of the appellants could not be accepted. Hence, he
would submit that the learned Single Judge has rightly appreciated the oral and
documentary evidence and passed the preliminary decree in favour of the
plaintiffs and partly allowed the counterclaim. Therefore, the appeals are liable
to be dismissed.
12. In the light of the submissions made on either side and the materials
on record, the following points arise for consideration:
(i) Whether the suit property was purchased out of the joint contributions
of the children of Parameswari Ammal and Kalasami Nadar?
(ii) Whether the family possessed sufficient joint family nucleus to
purchase the suit property?
13.Point No.I -Whether the suit property was purchased out of the joint
contributions of the children of Parameswari Ammal and Kalasami Nadar?
The relationship between the parties is not in dispute. Defendants 1 to 7
are the brothers and sisters of the second plaintiff, while defendants 8 to 10 are
the legal heirs of the predeceased son, Jothi. The suit property was purchased in
the joint names of the first plaintiff and Parameswari Ammal, mother of the
__________
Page 6 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 06:09:58 pm )
OSA Nos.18 & 19 of 2024
second plaintiff, under sale deeds dated 07.01.1981 and 08.01.1981 (Exs.P1 and
P2). The appellants contend that the sale consideration was paid from the
mortgage amount borrowed from Nataraja Nadar and rely upon Exs.P3 and P4,
particularly Ex.P3, dated 08.01.1981, which was executed by several family
members. However, the recitals in Ex.P3 show that defendants 1 to 7 and Jothi
were included as parties to the mortgage deed only at the insistence of the
mortgagee as a matter of abundant caution. Clause 9 specifically states that they
have no right over the suit property. Their participation in the mortgage
transaction, therefore, does not establish that they contributed towards the
purchase consideration. Likewise, the execution of the subsequent mortgage
deed, Ex.P4, dated 15.07.1985, does not establish any contribution towards the
original purchase or confer any independent right or title upon the appellants.
Both mortgage deeds relate to the same property. In view of the specific recitals
in Ex.P3, the execution of Exs.P3 and P4 cannot, by itself, establish joint
contribution towards the purchase of the suit property. Accordingly, the
appellants' contention that the mortgage deeds establish their contribution
towards the purchase consideration cannot be accepted.
14.Point No.II- Whether the Family Possessed Sufficient Joint Family
Nucleus?
The appellants further contend that the family jointly conducted a
business under the name and style of M/s. Kaleeswari Gunny Stores and that its
__________
Page 7 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 06:09:58 pm )
OSA Nos.18 & 19 of 2024
income was utilized to purchase the suit property. No documentary evidence has
been produced to establish that the business was jointly conducted by all the
family members. There is no partnership deed, account book, business
registration or other material to support the alleged joint business. On the
contrary, the evidence of DW1 and DW2 shows that their father and DW1 were
working as coolies. The evidence does not establish that the family had
sufficient joint family nucleus to generate the sale consideration. The inclusion
of some family members in the mortgage deeds does not give rise to a
presumption that the property was purchased out of joint family funds. The
appellants have failed to establish either the existence of a joint family business
or sufficient joint family income at the relevant time. Hence, the plea that the
suit property was purchased out of joint family contributions cannot be
sustained.
15. The learned Single Judge considered the oral and documentary
evidence, including the recitals in Ex.P3 and the absence of evidence
establishing the alleged joint family business. The defendants have not
produced any material to show that they contributed towards the purchase
consideration. The sale deeds, Exs.P1 and P2, stand in the names of the first
plaintiff and Parameswari Ammal, and their validity has not been challenged.
The appellants' case rests only on the assertion that the consideration was
__________
Page 8 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 06:09:58 pm )
OSA Nos.18 & 19 of 2024
contributed jointly. The burden was therefore upon the appellants to establish,
by acceptable evidence, that the property was purchased out of joint family
funds. They have failed to discharge that burden. The recitals in Ex.P3 clearly
show that the other family members were included as formal parties and had no
right over the suit property. The appellants cannot rely upon their signatures in
the mortgage deeds while disregarding the recitals contained in those very
documents. In the absence of independent evidence of contribution or sufficient
joint family nucleus, the appellants' claim cannot be accepted. The learned
Single Judge rightly held that the first plaintiff is entitled to one-half share in the
suit property and that the remaining half share, originally belonging to
Parameswari Ammal, devolved upon her legal heirs. Accordingly, the second
plaintiff, defendants 1 to 7 and the legal heirs of Jothi are entitled to their
respective shares in Parameswari Ammal's half share. The determination that
the plaintiffs are entitled to 10/18th share and the defendants to the remaining
8/18th share does not warrant interference. On considering the materials on
record, we find that the learned Single Judge rightly rejected the claim that the
suit property was purchased out of joint family funds. We find no infirmity or
perversity in the findings warranting interference in these appeals.
16. For the reasons stated above, the appellants have not made out any
ground for interference with the judgment and decree of the learned Single
Judge. Accordingly, both the Original Side Appeals are dismissed, confirming
__________
Page 9 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 06:09:58 pm )
OSA Nos.18 & 19 of 2024
the judgment and decree dated 09.10.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in
C.S.No.48 of 2018 and the counterclaim. There shall be no order as to costs.
(N.S.K.,J.) (G.K.M.,J.)
02-11-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
VKR
To
The Sub Assistant Registrar (Original Side),
High Court of Madras,
Chennai.
__________
Page 10 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 06:09:58 pm )
OSA Nos.18 & 19 of 2024
N.SATHISH KUMAR J.
AND
GK.MUTHUKUMAAR J.
VKR
OSA Nos.18 & 19 of 2024
02-11-2026
__________
Page 11 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 06:09:58 pm )