AS No. 530 of 2012 __________ Page1 of 6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 07-04-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V. KARTHIKEYAN AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR AS No. 530 of 2012 and CMP No.8496 of 2024 and MP No.1 of 2012 1. Muthukumar 2. Govindarajan 3. Lakshmikantham 4. Sasirekha ..Plaintiffs / Appellant(s) Vs M/s. Cuddalore Power Gen Corporation Ltd., Rep by its Manager K.Srinivasan, Regd. Office 443, Anna Salai, Guna Buildings, Teynampet, Chennai ..Respondent(s)/ Defendant For Appellant(s): Ms.Hema Sampath, Senior Counsel. For Respondent(s): Mr.P.Dinesh Kumar https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis AS No. 530 of 2012 __________ Page2 of 6 JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by C.V.Karthikeyan J.) The plaintiff in O.S.No.134 of 2009 on the file of the Additional District Court / Fast Track Court – II, Cuddalore, are in appeal questioning one portion of the preliminary decree dated 30.01.2012, wherein, while determining the shares to be allotted to the plaintiffs on the one hand and the defendant on the other hand, the learned trial Judge had determined the boundaries to be allotted to each parties instead of determining the shares to be allotted and relegating the parties to further enquire in final decree proceedings with respect to division of property by metes and bounds. 2.The learned Senior Counsel for the appellants pointed out that the respondent herein / defendant had entered into an acquisition of vast tracks of land. It had been contended that this necessistated the appellants to institute a suit for partition and separate possession to protect their property. 3.While passing the preliminary decree, the learned Trial Judge had observed as follows: “23 ….. nkYk ; 2k ; gpujpthjp gh!;fud ; ghfk ; gphpf;fg;glhj brhj;jpy; mtUf;Fhpa ghjp ghfj;ij fpuak; bfhLj;Js;sjhft[k; https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis AS No. 530 of 2012 __________ Page3 of 6 bjhpfpwJ/ mth; kl;Lnk me;j TLjy; xg;ge;jk ; (supplemental agreement)y ; ifbaGj;J bra;Js;shh;/ tHf;F brhj;Jf;F tlf;fpYk;. nkw;fpYk; cs;s brhj;Jf;fis 1k; gpujpthjp Vw;fdnt fpuak; th';fpa brhj;jhd mtuJ ghf brhj;jpy; ghjp ghfj;ij. MjhtJ 57 Vf;fh ; epyj;ij ,e;j jhth brhj;jpd ; nkw;F gFjpapy ; jifik Kiwg;go (equity) ,e;j gh!;fud ; ghf brhj;ij 1k; gpujpthjpapd; fk;bgdpf;F xJf;fg;glntz;Lk; vd;Wk; nfl;Ls;shh;/ vdnt 1k ; gpujpthjp gh!;fudplkpUe;J fpuak; th';fpa brhj;J jhth brhj;jpd; nkw;Fg;gFjpapy; 1k; gpujpthjp fpuak; bgw;Ws;sjhy; nkw;F gFjpapy; 57 Vf;fh; epyj;ij 1k; gpujpthjp fk;bgdp jifik Kiwg;go (equity) Vw;gLtjpy; ,e;j thjpfSf;F vt;tpj ghjfKk; Vw;glg;nghtjpy;iy vd;Wk; vdnt me;j ghfj;ij jifik Kiwapy ; 1k ; gpujpthjpapd ; ghfj;jpy; itf;fg;gl ntz;oaJ mtrpakhdjhfnt fUjg;gLfpwJ/” 4.A reading of the aforementioned portion shows that the learned Trial Judge had, as a matter of fact, determined the boundaries of the property to be allotted to the respondent / defendant. That may not be proper. In a suit for partition, a decree is passed in two stages, one determining the shares and when there is no objection over the shares which are determined relegating the parties for further enquiry to determine the actual area with boundaries to be allotted in https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis AS No. 530 of 2012 __________ Page4 of 6 accordance with the shares, which had been determined. That would involve getting a layout of the land, which is the subject matter of the partition and determining the possibility of dividing it into metes and bounds and keeping in mind, the equity of all the parties and not putting any parties to a disadvantage position. 5.The learned Senior Counsel for the appellants pointed out that, if the observations issued by the trial Court are not interfered with, then the appellants would be left with an eastern boundary of the Bay of Bengal and the sand adjoining the Bay of Bengal which would automatically lesser in value than the lands which are more interior from the coast line. 6.We also heard the learned counsel for the respondent, who contended that since acquisition is a fait accompli, the compensation would be paid and since there is no dispute regarding the shares, the compensation would be paid equally among all the parties who are entitled to the same. 7.But however, considering the apprehension raised by the learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the appellant, we would interfere with the preliminary decree insofar as determining the boundaries of the properties to be allotted are concerned, since it had been determined without proper enquiry, which enquiry is contemplated under final decree proceedings alone. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis AS No. 530 of 2012 __________ Page5 of 6 8.The above observation extracted in paragraph No.23 of the judgment is set aside and the parties are relegated to the final decree proceedings to determine the actual lay of the land with specific boundaries which are to be allotted to each of them, according to the shares determined. 9.In view of the above observations, the Appeal Suit is partly allowed without interfering with the shares of the parties. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. (C.V.K.,J.) (K.R.S.,J.) 07-04-2026 smv Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No To The Additional District Court / Fast Track Court – II, Cuddalore. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis AS No. 530 of 2012 __________ Page6 of 6 C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J. AND K.RAJASEKAR, J. smv AS No. 530 of 2012 07-04-2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis