RANI vs R. VELU
- Court
- Madras High Court
2026:MHC:4509
AS No. 717 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 05-11-2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE C.V. KARTHIKEYAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.RAVEEKUMAR
AS No. 717 of 2017
&
C.M.P. No. 22810 of 2017
CNR:{HCMA011719852017}
Rani
W/o. Selvaraj,
No.20/6, Indira Nagar, Vridhachlam
Boothamur, Vridhachalam Taluk,
Cuddalore.
Appellant(s)
Vs
1. R. Velu
S/o. Rajangam,
2.R. Rajendran
S/o. Rajangam
3.R. Damodaran (died)
S/o. Rajangam
4.Mohan Raj
S/o.Late Damodaran,
5.Kalaivanan
S/o.Late Damodaran,
All are Residing at No.5A,
Main Road, Sedapalayam,
Cuddalore Taluk, Cuddalore District.
1\8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 04:34:59 pm )
2026:MHC:4509
AS No. 717 of 2017
R3 Died. R4 and R5 are brought on
record as LRS of deceased R3 vide
court order dated 06.10.2026 made in
CMP.Nos. 21873, 21875, 21876 of
2024 in AS.No.717/2017 (CVKJ and
RSVJ)
Respondent(s)
PRAYER
Appeal Suit to set aside the judgment and decree dated 31.07.2014 passed
in O.S. No. 163 of 2012 by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Cuddalore.
For Appellant(s): Mr.R. Gururaj
For Respondent(s): Mr.K.A. Ravindran for R1
J U D G M E N T
( Delivered by C.V.Karthikeyan J. )
The plaintiff in O.S. No. 163 of 2012, aggrieved by the dismissal of the
said suit, by judgment and decree dated 31.07.2014 passed by the learned
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Cuddalore, has filed the present appeal.
2. The said suit had been filed seeking partition and separate
possession of five separate items of properties, of which item Nos.1 to 4 are
th
agricultural lands and the 5 item is a house property. The defendants in the suit
are the three brothers of the plaintiff/appellant herein.
3. It had been contended by the plaintiff that as the daughter of the
family, she is entitled to undivided one-fourth share in each one of the items of
th
suit property. However, it had also been admitted that the 5 item, which is a
2\8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 04:34:59 pm )
2026:MHC:4509
AS No. 717 of 2017
house property, was purchased in the name of the first defendant, one of the
brothers of the plaintiff/R.Velu.
4. The claim for partition did not find favour with the learned
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Cuddalore and on examination of
pleadings and on framing necessary issues, the learned Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Cuddalore had entered into a discussion on Section 6 of The
Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act of 2005 and had stated that though Section
6 of the said Act provides for parity of rights in the co-parcenary property
among male and female members of a joint Hindu Family, the burden was on
the person who claims that the property was purchased from joint family
nucleus and in the light of the admission in the cross-examination of the
plaintiff that pattas with respect to item Nos. 1 to 4 of the suit property were in
the name of her brothers, had held that such burden had not been discharged and
had non-suited the plaintiff stating that she is not entitled to any share in the suit
property.
5. Mr.R. Gururaj, learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff is very
much aggrieved by the said finding rendered by the Trial Court. Learned
counsel pointed out that under the amendment, as a daughter in the family,
unless there is testamentary disposition or a partition entered in writing among
the parties, the daughter can never be denied a share in the properties. Learned
th
counsel was also fair enough in stating that since the 5 item of the suit property
3\8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 04:34:59 pm )
2026:MHC:4509
AS No. 717 of 2017
stands in the name of the first defendant/R.Velu, the appellant herein has given
up her rights over the said item of property. However, he would insist that the
appellant has a right of undivided one-fourth share in item Nos. 1 to 4, which
are agricultural lands. Mr.K.A. Ravindran, learned counsel for the first
respondent stated that in the written statement, it had been very clearly stated
that the first respondent has no objection to divide item Nos. 1 to 4 of the suit
property in accordance with law.
6. Now, subsequent to the amendment in the year 2005, daughters
have been recognised to lay a claim in the Joint Family Property provided there
had been no earlier testamentary disposition or a written partition deed effected
over the said property. The father had already died prior to 20.12.2004, as a
matter of fact, as early as in the year 1979. The facts being not in dispute and
the properties being identifiable, we hold that the judgment of the Trial Court
declining to grant preliminary decree for partition of any share in the suit
property to the appellant has to be necessarily re-visited, re-examined and set
aside by us.
7. We are also informed that respondents 2 and 3/defendants 2 and 3,
who are incidentally the other brothers of the appellant, filed appeals before this
Court questioning the judgment of the Trial Court and those appeals were
dismissed for non-prosecution. But, we would also keep their rights in mind.
4\8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 04:34:59 pm )
2026:MHC:4509
AS No. 717 of 2017
8. In view of the undisputed facts, we would set aside the judgment
and decree of the Trial Court and grant a preliminary decree to the appellant
herein/Rani, who was the plaintiff in O.S. No. 163 of 2012 to an undivided one-
fourth share in item Nos. 1 to 4 as described in the plaint. We would only
impress upon the learned Trial Judge, when the final decree application is filed,
to ensure that the partition is effected in such a way that agricultural activities
can be continued to be performed and agricultural lands are not fragmented into
further pieces and that at least one item of the property goes to the appellant so
that she could be satisfied with the same and thereafter, her brothers/respondents
1 to 3 can enjoy the fruits of other items of the suit property.
th
9. However, we make it clear that the 5 item of the property which
st
stands in the name of the 1 respondent/R.Velu since it had been purchased in
his name, he can lawfully claim title.
10. In the result,
(i) The judgment and decree passed in O.S. No. 163 of 2012 by
the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Cuddalore
District is hereby set aside and the appeal stands allowed;
(ii) A preliminary decree is passed granting undivided
one-fourth share in item Nos. 1 to 4 of the property to the
appellant herein and also simultaneously granting undivided one-
fourth share, each to respondents 2 and 3.
5\8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 04:34:59 pm )
2026:MHC:4509
AS No. 717 of 2017
rd
(iii) We are conscious of the fact that the 3 respondent
had died and his legal representatives have been brought on
nd
record as respondents 4 and 5. Therefore, the 2 respondent
would be entitled to undivided one-fourth share in item Nos. 1 to 4
and respondents 4 and 5 would be entitled to undivided one-fourth
share in item Nos. 1 to 4;
(iv) Item No.5 will vest entirely with the first respondent
and he is also independently entitled to undivided one-fourth
share in item Nos. 1 to 4;
(v) Parties to apply to the Trial Court for final decree
application and they shall answer the final decree application
before the Trial Court on 20.11.2026.
(vi) There shall be no orders as to costs.
Connected C.M.P. is closed.
(C.V.KARTHIKEYAN J.)(S.RAVEEKUMAR J.)
05-11-2026
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
nv
6\8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 04:34:59 pm )
2026:MHC:4509
AS No. 717 of 2017
To
The Additional District and Sessions Court,
Cuddalore.
7\8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 04:34:59 pm )
2026:MHC:4509
AS No. 717 of 2017
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN J.
AND
S.RAVEEKUMAR J.
nv
AS No. 717 of 2017
&
C.M.P. No. 22810 of 2017
05-11-2026
8\8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 04:34:59 pm )