S.R.SRIRAM vs S.RAVISEKARAN

Court
Madras High Court

AS(MD) No. 115 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 03-11-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJNISH PATHIYIL
AS(MD) No. 115 of 2020
CNR:{HCMD010429912020}
S.R.Sriram
S/o.S.Ravisekaran, 28, S.A.B.Team, Primus
Building, Door No.SP-7A, Ground Floor, Guindy
Industrial Estate, Chennai - 600 032.
..Appellant/Plaintiff
Vs
1. S.Ravisekaran
S/o. Sathoorappa Naicker, 1/29, Keelanmarainadu
Village, A.Lakshmiapuram Post, Vembakottai
Taluk, Virudhunagar District.
2. S.R.Sridhar,
S/o.S.Ravisekaran, 1/29, Keelanmarainadu
Village, A. Lakshmiapuram Post, Vembakottai
Taluk, Virudhunagar District.
3. The District Collector,
District Collector’s Office, Virudhunagar District,
Virudhunagar representing the State of
Tamilnadu.
..Respondents/Defendants
PRAYER: Appeal Suit filed under Order 41 Rule 1 and Section 96 of
C.P.C to set aside the judgment and decree dated 04.12.2019 made in
O.S.No.75 of 2017 on the file of the Principal District Court,
Virudhunagar at Srivilliputhur.
__________
Page  1  of  8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 11:26:02 am )

AS(MD) No. 115 of 2020
For Appellant(s) :Mr.P.Athimoolapandian
For Respondent(s) : No appearance (R1 & R2)
: Mr.L.Siva (R3)
Government Advocate
JUDGMENT
(Order of the Court was made by ABDUL QUDDHOSE J.)
This appeal has been filed challenging the impugned judgment and
decree dated 04.12.2019 passed by the Principal District Court,
Virudhunagar at Srivilliputhur, in O.S.No.75 of 2017.
2. The plaintiff is the appellant herein. The first respondent is the
father and the second respondent is the brother of the appellant herein.
The suit in O.S.No.75 of 2017, on the file of the Principal District Court,
Virudhunagar at Srivilliputhur, was filed by the appellant against the
respondents 1 and 2, seeking for partition of his 1/3 share in the suit
schedule properties. The third respondent (Government represented by
District Collector), who was the third defendant in the suit, was arrayed
as a party defendant, since the third defendant purchased the suit schedule
properties from the respondents 1 and 2 under a sale deed dated
25.08.2009. The first and second respondents, who were the first and
second defendants in the suit, were set ex-parte by the trial Court. Only
__________
Page  2  of  8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 11:26:02 am )

AS(MD) No. 115 of 2020
the third respondent, who was the third defendant in the suit, contested
the suit by filing a written statement.
3. Before the trial Court, on the side of the plaintiff, he himself was
examined as P.W.1 and Exs.A1 to A6 were marked. On the side of the
defendants, one witness was examined and Ex.B1 to B5 were marked.
4. On the basis of the pleadings of the plaintiff and the third
respondent, the trial Court has framed necessary issues and after
analysing both the oral and documentary evidence dismissed the suit as
prayed for. Aggrieved by the Judgment and decree passed by the trial
Court, the plaintiff as appellant has preferred the present appeal suit.
5. In the forthcoming paragraphs, the parties are described as per
their litigative status in the suit.
6. According to the plaintiff, the suit schedule properties are
ancestral properties and therefore, he is entitled to 1/3rd share in the suit
schedule properties as prayed for in the suit. However, as seen from the
written statement filed by the third defendant (Government represented
by District Collector), who has purchased the properties from the
__________
Page  3  of  8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 11:26:02 am )

AS(MD) No. 115 of 2020
defendants 1 and 2, the third defendant has categorically claimed that the
suit schedule properties are not ancestral properties.
7. Based on the pleadings of the respective parties, the trial Court
framed the following issues:
(a) Whether the suit is barred by limitation?
(b) Whether the third defendant is an unnecessary party to the suit?
(c) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get preliminary decree for
partition?
(d) What other reliefs and costs the plaintiff is entitled for?
Additional issue:
(1) Whether the property is coparcenary property or not?
8. The points for consideration in this appeal are as follows:
(a) Whether the trial Court was correct in dismissing the suit
filed by the plaintiff seeking partition of 1/3rd share in the suit
schedule properties in his favour?
(b) Whether the plaintiff has proved that the suit schedule
properties are ancestral properties as pleaded in the plaint?
__________
Page  4  of  8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 11:26:02 am )

AS(MD) No. 115 of 2020
(c) Whether the suit is maintainable without seeking for a
declaration that the sale deed executed by the defendants 1 and 2
(Ex.A2) in favour of the third defendant is null and void?
9. With regard to the issue of limitation framed by the trial Court,
the trial Court answered the said issue in favour of the plaintiff by
holding that, as the suit is a partition suit, there is no limitation and
therefore the plea of limitation taken by the third defendant has to be
rejected.
10. However, with regard to the other issues framed by the trial
Court, namely issue Nos.2 and 3, the trial Court rejected the contention of
the plaintiff by holding that the sale deed executed by the defendants 1
and 2 in favour of the third defendant (Ex.A2) is a valid document, since
the first defendant had acted as the Kartha of the joint family and the
second defendant, who is the brother of the plaintiff, had sold his self-
acquired property to the third defendant. Admittedly, the sale deed
executed in favour of the third defendant by defendants 1 and 2, dated
25.08.2009 (Ex.A.2) has also not been challenged by the plaintiff in the
suit. As seen from the exhibits marked on the side of the plaintiff, there is
no evidence whatsoever that has been produced by the plaintiff to prove
__________
Page  5  of  8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 11:26:02 am )

AS(MD) No. 115 of 2020
that both items of the suit schedule properties are joint family properties.
Even if one of the properties, namely item No.1, is admitted to be a joint
family property, the plaintiff ought to have challenged the execution of
the sale deed (Ex.A2) standing in the name of the third defendant, who is
the Government. The Sale deed (Ex.A.2) was executed as early as in the
year 2009 itself. However, the suit was filed by the plaintiff only in the
year 2017.
11. It is also an admitted fact that the properties are now being used
by the Government for public interest. The defendants 1 and 2 in the suit
have also remained ex parte before the trial Court. No reasons have been
given by the plaintiff in the plaint as to why there was a delay on the part
of the plaintiff in filing the suit in the year 2017, though the sale deed in
respect of the suit schedule properties was executed by defendants 1 and
2 as early as in the year 2009 itself.
12. The trial Court, only based on the evidence available on record,
has come to the right conclusion that the plaintiff is not entitled to
partition as prayed for in the suit. The issues framed by the trial Court
have been rightly answered by it by holding the same against the plaintiff.
The trial Court has also rightly rejected the additional issue framed by it
__________
Page  6  of  8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 11:26:02 am )

AS(MD) No. 115 of 2020
by holding that the suit schedule properties are not coparcenary
properties, as claimed by the plaintiff.
13. We do not find any infirmity in the findings rendered by the
trial Court. Therefore, there is no merit in this appeal. Accordingly, this
appeal suit is dismissed. No costs.
(A.Q.,J.) (R.P.L.,J.)
03-11-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
PS
To
1.The Principal District Court,
Virudhunagar at Srivilliputhur.
2.The District Collector,
District Collector’s Office,
Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar.
3.The Section Officer,
VR Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
__________
Page  7  of  8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 11:26:02 am )

AS(MD) No. 115 of 2020
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
AND
RAJNISH PATHIYIL, J.
PS
AS(MD) No. 115 of 2020
03-11-2026
__________
Page  8  of  8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 11:26:02 am )