C. Chidambaram vs C.Meenakshisundaram

C.M.A.(MD).No.421 of 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved On 31.08.2026
Pronounced On 02.11.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN
C.M.A.(MD).No.421 of 2026
and
C.M.P.(MD).No.4027 of 2026
1.C.Chidambaram
C.Muthuraman (died)
2.M.Seetha
3.M.Alagappan
4.M.Chockalingam ...
Appellants
Vs.
1.C.Meenakshisundaram
2.C.Manickam
... Respondents
PRAYER:- Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Order 43 Rule 1(U) of C.P.C.,
to set aside the judgment and decree dated 28.04.2025 made in A.S.No.35 of 2022 on
the file of Principal District Court, Sivagangai by remanding the final decree dated
02.09.2022 made in I.A.No.54 of 2008 in O.S.No.155 of 2003 on the file of
Subordinate Court, Devakottai.
For Appellants : Mr.Prasanth Narayanan for
: Mr.Prahald K.Bhat
For Respondents : Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan for R1
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 07:09:49 pm )

C.M.A.(MD).No.421 of 2026
: No appearance for R2
J U D G M E N T
The appellants, who are the first defendant and the legal heirs of the second
defendant, have filed the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, challenging the
judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.35 of 2012 on the file of the learned Principal
District Judge, Sivagangai, dated 28.04.2025, whereby the learned Appellate Judge
allowed the appeal preferred against the dismissal of I.A.No.54 of 2008 in
O.S.No.155 of 2003.
2. Facts of the case:
2.1.The first respondent herein filed the suit in O.S.No.155 of 2003 seeking
partition of the suit schedule properties. After contest, the suit was decreed, declaring
that the plaintiff was entitled to a 1/4 share in the suit schedule properties. Taking
into consideration the special circumstances, the preliminary decree further directed
that, in lieu of the house property mentioned in the suit schedule, the plaintiff should
be allotted an equivalent extent of property from the other suit properties.
2.2.Thereafter, a final decree application was filed, in which an Advocate
Commissioner was appointed to inspect, measure and allot the properties by metes
and bounds. Based on the Commissioner's report, a final decree was passed in
2
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 07:09:49 pm )

C.M.A.(MD).No.421 of 2026
I.A.No.54 of 2008. The final decree was thereafter acted upon; the properties were
registered and possession was handed over to the respective parties. Some of the
parties also alienated the properties allotted to them.
2.3.Subsequently, the first respondent/plaintiff filed I.A.No.54 of 2008
seeking allotment of his legitimate share in the vacant land situated adjacent to the
house property, contending that the said vacant land had not been taken into
consideration while passing the final decree. The said application was dismissed by
the trial Court. Aggrieved thereby, the first respondent preferred A.S.No.35 of 2022
before the learned Principal District Judge, Sivagangai.
2.4.The learned Appellate Judge allowed the appeal, holding that the
plaintiff was entitled to an equal share in the vacant site also, which had not been
properly considered by the Advocate Commissioner while effecting the division
pursuant to the preliminary decree. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the first
defendant and the legal heirs of the second defendant have preferred the present
appeal.
3.Submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants:
3.1.The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the
preliminary decree had attained finality, as no challenge was made thereto.
Thereafter, during the final decree proceedings, an Advocate Commissioner was
3
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 07:09:49 pm )

C.M.A.(MD).No.421 of 2026
appointed, who inspected and measured the properties and allotted the respective
shares to the parties. The parties accepted the Commissioner's report, pursuant to
which the final decree was passed. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the
plaintiff cannot now seek a fresh division of the properties, particularly when no
objection had been raised to the Commissioner's report at the relevant point of time.
Such a course would also amount to permitting the plaintiff to approbate and
reprobate. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied upon the judgments
in the case of Krishna Reddiar vs Ramanuja Reddiar reported in AIR 1929 Madras
492 and 1930 Law Weekly 30.
3.2.The learned counsel further submitted that, after accepting the
Commissioner's report and allowing the final decree to be passed, the plaintiff cannot
seek to reopen the final decree proceedings. It was also contended that the learned
Appellate Judge, without jurisdiction, ought not to have remitted the matter to the
trial Court for passing a further final decree in respect of the vacant land situated
adjacent to the house property.
4. Submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the respondents:
4.1.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the first
respondent/plaintiff submitted that, on a proper reading of the preliminary decree and
the judgment, it is clear that only the house property measuring 425 sq.ft. was taken
into consideration for the purpose of compensation. The adjacent vacant land was
4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 07:09:49 pm )

C.M.A.(MD).No.421 of 2026
neither divided nor compensated under the preliminary decree. Therefore, the
plaintiff's legitimate share in the said vacant land still remains to be worked out.
4.2.The learned counsel further submitted that the final decree Court is not
bound to mechanically accept the Commissioner's report and is required to
independently consider the allotment of the properties by metes and bounds in
accordance with the preliminary decree. Therefore, the learned Appellate Judge was
justified in directing the trial Court to consider the plaintiff's claim in respect of the
vacant land.
5.This Court has considered the rival submissions and perused the
materials available on record as well as the judgments relied upon by the learned
counsel appearing for the respective parties.
6.The following point arises for consideration:
6.1.Whether the learned Appellate Judge was justified in remitting the
matter to the trial Court for considering the plaintiff's claim in respect of the vacant
land situated adjacent to the house property mentioned in the suit schedule?
7. Discussion and findings:
7.1.To appreciate the said issue, it is necessary to extract the relevant
findings contained in the judgment in O.S.No.155 of 2003 on the file of the Sub
5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 07:09:49 pm )

C.M.A.(MD).No.421 of 2026
Court, Devakottai, by which the preliminary decree was passed, the operative portion
of the preliminary decree reads as follows:
nkhj;j kjpg;G
A Scheduled
thjpapd ; 4y ; xU
ghfj;jpw;F kjpg;G
(Ughapy;)
1. thjpf;F gpuhjpy ; NfhupAs;sgb jhth
nrhj;jpy; ¼ ghfk ; toq;fp Kjy ; epiy
jPh;g;ghiz gpwg;gpf;fg;gLfpwJ.
Ughapy;
1.nghJtPL vd;W miof;fg;gLk ; fhiuf;Fb lTd;
Myq;Fbahh; tPjp fjtpyf;fk;nghJ tPL vd;W
miof;fg;gLk;. fhiuf;Fb lTd ; Myq;Fbahh;
tPjpapy; fjT ,yf;fk ; 1 thp tpjpg;G vz;.29793
Xl;LtPL (gioa fjT ,yf;fk; 193 / 1)
XU yl;rk; 25.000
2.jhth tPl;by; thjpf;Fwpa gFjpf;F <lhf
NtW nrhj;Jf;fspy ; thjpf;F xJf;fpl
Ntz;Lk; vd;gjhfTk; cj;jutplg;gLfpd;wd.
2.Nkw;gb tPl;il xl;ba fhyp kidaplk; Rkhh; 8
nrz;bd; nkhj;j kjpg;G
3 yl;rk; 75.000
3.fhiuf;Fb Rg;gpukzpaGuk ; 4tJ tPjp tlf;F
tp];jug;gpy; b.v];.vz;.511/gp fhypkidaplj;jpy;
nkhj;j t]jPuzk; 21 nrd;l;
4 yl;rk; 100000
8 yl;rk; 200000

7.2.On a careful reading of the aforesaid documents, it is evident that the
preliminary decree specifically dealt with the house property measuring 425 sq.ft.
The judgment makes specific reference to the house property and directs that, in lieu
of the said house property, the plaintiff should be allotted an equivalent extent of
other property. However, there is no reference in the preliminary decree to the vacant
land situated adjacent to the said house property, nor is there any indication that the
plaintiff's share in the said vacant land was either allotted or compensated in any
manner.
7.3.Therefore, the vacant land forming part of the suit schedule properties
remained undivided. Merely because the Advocate Commissioner, during the earlier
final decree proceedings, did not include the said vacant land in the allotment, the
6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 07:09:49 pm )

C.M.A.(MD).No.421 of 2026
plaintiff cannot be deprived of his substantive right declared under the preliminary
decree. The final decree must necessarily conform to the preliminary decree and must
determine the rights declared therein.
7.4.The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the
plaintiff is precluded from seeking his share on the principle of approbate and
reprobate cannot be accepted in the facts of the present case. The plaintiff is not
seeking to challenge or reopen the rights already settled under the final decree. He is
only seeking allotment of his legitimate share in a portion of the suit schedule
property which, admittedly, was not dealt with under the preliminary decree or the
final decree.
7.5.The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants,
including the decision reported in AIR 1929 Madras 492 , do not advance their case.
In the said decision, the factual and legal circumstances were different. In the present
case, the preliminary decree itself contains no adjudication or allotment concerning
the vacant land in question. Therefore, the said decision has no application.
7.6.Likewise, the decision reported in 1930 Law Weekly 3 0, relied upon by
the appellants on the principle of approbate and reprobate, is also not applicable.
There is no inconsistent stand on the part of the plaintiff. The plaintiff is merely
seeking to work out the share declared in his favour under the preliminary decree in
respect of the property which was not divided earlier.
7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 07:09:49 pm )

C.M.A.(MD).No.421 of 2026
7.7.In such circumstances, this Court finds that the learned Appellate Judge
was justified in holding that the plaintiff is entitled to seek allotment of his share in
the vacant land and in remitting the matter to the trial Court for the purpose of
effecting such allotment in accordance with the preliminary decree.
7.8.Hence, this Court finds no merit in the contentions raised by the learned
counsel appearing for the appellants. The judgment and decree passed by the learned
Principal District Judge, Sivagangai, do not warrant interference.
8.Result:
8.1.Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. The
judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.35 of 2022, dated 28.04.2025, are confirmed.
Considering the relationship between the parties, there shall be no order as to costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

02.11.2026
NCC :Yes/No
Index :Yes/No
Internet :Yes/No
sbn
8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 07:09:49 pm )

C.M.A.(MD).No.421 of 2026
To
1.The Principal District Court, Sivagangai
2.The Sub Court, Devakottai.
3.The Section Officer,
VR Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 07:09:49 pm )

C.M.A.(MD).No.421 of 2026
K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN,J.
sbn
C.M.A.(MD).No.421 of 2026
and
C.M.P.(MD).No.4027 of 2026
Dated: 02 .11.2026

10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 07:09:49 pm )