Ganapathy v. Sammandan

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 09-02-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI AND CMP NO. 2813 OF 2026

1. Ganapathy s/o.Chella Perumal Mudaliyar Pillaiyar Koil Street, Vadapoondipattu Village, Kaganam Post, Cheyyar Taluk Tiruvannamalai District.

2. Sekar S/o.Chella Perumal Mudaliyar Pillayar Koil street, Vadapoondipattu Village, Kaganam Post, Cheyyar Taluk Tiruvannamalai District

3. Punidhavathi D/o.Chella Perumal Mudaliyar W/o.Ramamoorthy No.9, Alapakkam, Srinivasa Nagar Post, Chennai-600063

4. Thanigaivel S/o.Annamalai Mudaliyar Pillayar Koil street, Vadapoondipattu Village, Kaganam Post, Cheyyar Taluk Tiruvannamalai District

5. Dharani D/o.Annamalai Mudaliyar Pillayar Koil street, Vadapoondipattu Village, Kaganam Post, Cheyyar Taluk Tiruvannamalai District

6. Balamurugan S/o.Annamalai Mudaliyar Pillayar Koil street, Vadapoondipattu Village, Kaganam Post, Cheyyar Taluk Tiruvannamalai District

7. Sakthivel S/o.Annamalai Mudaliyar Pillayar Koil street, Vadapoondipattu Village, Kaganam Post, Cheyyar Taluk Tiruvannamalai District

8. Dinakaran S/o.Annamalai Mudaliyar Pillayar Koil street, Vadapoondipattu Village, Kaganam Post, Cheyyar Taluk Tiruvannamalai District

9. Kalai Selvi w/o.Sekar Pillayar Koil street, Vadapoondipattu Village, Kaganam Post, Cheyyar Taluk Tiruvannamalai District ..Appellant(s) Vs

1. Sammandan S/o.Chella Perumal Mudaliyar No.14, Pillayar Koil street Vadapoondipattu Village, Kaganam Post, Cheyyar Taluk Tiruvannamalai District.

2. Annamalai S/o.Rajagopal Mudaliyar Pillayar Koil street, Vadapoondipattu Village, Kaganam Post, Cheyyar Taluk, Tiruvannamalai District

3. The Block Development Officer Cheyyar Union Office, Cheyyar Town and Taluk Tiruvannamalai District

4. Panneerselvam S/o.Venkatesan Mudaliyar Pinnapattu Village, Melmattai Vinnamangalam Post, Cheyyar Taluk, Tiruvannamalai District

5. Manigandan S/o.Panneerselvam Pinnapattu Village Melmattai Vinnamangalam Post, Cheyyar Taluk, Tiruvannamalai District

6. Tamilselvan S/o.Panneerselvam Pinnapattu Village, Melmattai Vinnamangalam Post, Cheyyar Taluk Tiruvannamalai District ..Respondent(s) PRAYER Second Appeal filed under Sec.100 of Civil Procedure Code, praying to set aside the Decree and Judgment passed in A.S.No.11 of 2019 dated 13.12.2023 on the file of the Sub-Ordinate Judge, Cheyyar, Tiruvannamalai District, confirming the Decree and Judgment passed in O.S.No.260 of 2015, dated 10.12.2018, on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court at Cheyyar, Tiruvannamalai District.

For Appellant(s):

Mr.K.G.Senthil Kumar

JUDGMENT

Challenging the concurrent findings of the courts below in A.S.No.11 of 2019 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Cheyyar, Tiruvannamalai District arising out of trial court findings in O.S.No. 260 of 2015 on the file of Additional District Munsif, Cheyyar, the defendants 1 to 9 have preferred this Second Appeal.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are denoted as per the ranking in the Suit.

3. Before the trial court, the plaintiff filed a suit for partition claiming 1/6th share in the entire suit properties stating that all the properties belongs to Pachammal, mother of plaintiff. Therefore, he claimed 1/6th share in the suit properties. The defendants 1 and 2 also have contested the suit and the defendants 3, 5, 6 to 15 were remained exparte. They have contended that the said Pachammal died testate and she has already settled the property. Based on the settlement deed as well as based on the Will, they have claimed title over the suit properties. Before the trial court, the contention of defendants 1 and 2 is that mother of plaintiff had executed a Will in favour of defendants 6, 8, 9 and 10 on 21.04.1997 marked as Ex.B11 and the alleged Settlement deed Ex.B7

dated 23.06.2015 through which Defendants 3, 4 and 7 claimed right, more particularly, in respect of item no.5. Furthermore, as per the Will marked as Ex.B12 also, they have claimed right over the property, in which, the defendants 3, 4 and 7 not entitled any share. The plaintiff contended that Pachammal was died intestate. So, the burden is heavily cast upon them, who claimed right over the suit properties based upon the settlement deed as well as Will, who ought to have examined themselves, but they have not entered into witness box.

4. Admittedly, the Will Ex.B12 was not proved by the contesting defendants, since at the time alleged execution of Ex.B12, the testator was aged about 80 years and within 5 days she died, for which no reason was assigned. So also, as per the contention of defendants, the plaintiff's mother executed a Will marked as Ex.B12 is also not proved as prescribed under Sec.68 of Indian Evidence Act. Apart from that, the 1st defendant is one among the witness, who is an interested witness and another witness as well as document writer was not examined. Signature was also in dispute and the same was not proved, which is raising reasonable doubt on the defendants. Therefore, the plaintiff claiming that Pachammal was died intestate.

However, the defendants approached this court, since they have failed to enter into witness box and intended to prove the Will as alleged by the plaintiff, which requires interference.

of this order by giving opportunity to both parties. Accordingly, this Second Appeal is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

09-02-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order RPP To

1. The Sub-Judge, Cheyyar.

2. The Additional District Munsif, Cheyyar.

3. The Section Officer, VR Section, Madras High Court.

T.V.THAMILSELVI J.

RPP AND CMP NO. 2813 OF 2026 09-02-2026