A.S.(MD)No.44 of 2018 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 16.04.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN and THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA A.S.(MD)No.44 of 2018 and C.M.P.(MD)No.2273 of 2018 and C.M.P.(MD)No.13533 of 2024 1.Arappan (Died) 2.Sarasu 3.Kumar 4.Anandakumar 5.Ravi 6.Raja 7.Tamil Selvi ... Appellants (Appellants 2 to 7 are brought on record as LRs of the deceased sole appellant vide common order dated 17.03.2025 made in C.M.P.(MD)Nos.4631, 4634, 4636, 4637 & 4638 of 2025 in A.S.(MD)No.44 of 2018 respectively by GRSJ & MJRJ). Vs. 1.M.Athammal (Died), Rep by her Special Power Agent, Pappathi. 1/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.(MD)No.44 of 2018 2.M.Pappathi 3.T.Ragunathan 4.T.Ramesh 5.S.Bhuvaneswari 6.T.Saravanan 7.T.Lakshmi 8.Malarmathi 9.Parvathi 10.Velkumar 11.Kamala 12.Renganayaki 13.Amuthavalli 14.Yasotha 15.C.Nagaraj 16.Ponnammal 17.Nallammal 18.Amsavalli 19.Ananthakrishnan 20.Rajalakshmi 21.Ayyapillai @ Kannammal 22.Chinnappan 23.Pappathi 24.Ramasamy 25.A.Sigamani 26.Murugesan 2/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.(MD)No.44 of 2018 27.Thangavel 28.Nataraj 29.Lakshmi 30.Sarala Amulraj 31.Saraswathi 32.Chinnammal 33.S. Anbukkennadi Shanmugam (Died) 34.Manimegalai 35.Jeevitha Karthika (Died) 36. Rathnamoorthi ... Respondents (Respondents 33 to 36 are brought on record as LRs of the deceased 1st respondent vide common order dated 17.03.2025 made in C.M.P.(MD)Nos.4631, 4634, 4636, 4637 and 4638 of 2025 in A.S.(MD)No.44 of 2018 respectively by GRSJ and MJRJ.) Prayer : Appeal Suit filed under Section 96 of Civil Procedure Code, to allow this appeal by setting aside the judgment and decree dated 31.10.2017 made in O.S.No.6 of 2011 on the file of the Fast Track Mahila Court, Dindigul. For Appellants : Mr.M.Suresh For Respondents : Mr.A.N.Ramanathan for R25 & R31 Mr.M.Divakaran for R2, R33, R35 & R36 3/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.(MD)No.44 of 2018 JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by G.R.Swaminathan, J.) The ninth defendant in O.S No. 6 of 2011 on the file of Fast Track Mahila Court, Dindigul filed this appeal. The suit was one for partition. During the pendency of the appeal, the original appellant passed away and his legal heirs were brought on record. 2.The suit property comprises 18 schedules. Schedules 1 to 16 were the self-acquired properties of one Muthappan @ Karuppan. He married one Chinnammal. Through the wedlock, three sons (Thirumoorthy, Arappan and Chinna Thambi) and two daughters (Athammal and Pappathi) were born. Muthappan @ Karuppan died on 05.01.1993. He died interstate. Subsequently, Chinnammal also passed away on 27.06.1999. She also died intestate. Since the daughters were not allotted any share in the property, they filed O.S No.6 of 2011 claiming 2/5th share in suit schedules 1 to 16. Schedules 17 and 18 were the joint family properties of Muthappan @ Karuppan and his siblings. The other defendants belonged to the other two branches. In respect of schedules 17 and 18, the plaintiffs sought 2/15th share. 4/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.(MD)No.44 of 2018 3.The original appellant in his written statement pleaded ouster. However, during the course of his evidence, he conceded that the property is a joint family property and that all the children of Muthappan @ Karuppan were in joint enjoyment. In other words, the plea of ouster was not pressed. 4.The second plaintiff / Pappathi examined herself as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A6. On the side of the defendants, the original appellant / Arappan examined himself as D.W.1 and two other witnesses were examined as D.W.2 and D.W.3 and Exs.B1 to B6 were marked. After considering the evidence on record, the Court below vide judgment and decree dated 31.10.2017 granted 2/5th share in schedules 1 to 16 and 2/15th share in schedules 17 and 18 in favour of the plaintiffs. Questioning the same, this appeal has been filed. 5.After hearing the learned counsel on either side, we are of the view that there is no merit in this appeal. The relationship between the parties is not in dispute. That the persons from whom right is claimed died intestate is also not in dispute. The plea of ouster was not pressed. It 5/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.(MD)No.44 of 2018 was also conceded that the parties were in joint enjoyment. In these circumstances, the parties are entitled to a share in the suit schedule properties as per law. The court below had passed preliminary decree only to that effect. No ground has been made out to interfere with the well considered judgement of the court below. This appeal stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. (G.R.S. J.,) & (R.P. J.,) 16.04.2026 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No ias To: The Fast Track Mahila Court, Dindigul. Copy to: The Section Officer, ER/VR Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. 6/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.(MD)No.44 of 2018 G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J. and R.POORNIMA, J. ias A.S.(MD)No.44 of 2018 16.04.2026 7/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis