Madras High Court Hears Appeal Against Partition Decree in Joint Family Property Suit. Appeal Filed Under Section 96 of CPC Seeks to Set Aside Decree Granting 1/4th Share to Plaintiff in Intestate Succession Case.

High Court: Madras High Court Bench: Principal
  • 8
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Issue of Consideration

A.S(MD)No.110 of 2017

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Case Details

2026 LawText (MAD) (07) 23

A.S(MD)No.110 of 2017 and C.M.P(MD)No.6407 of 2017

2026-07-06

P. Vadamalai

2026:MHC:2533

V. Meenakshi Sundaram for R. Mohana Sundaram (Appellant), J. Barathan (R1), P. Sesubalan Raja (R2), No Appearance (R3)

A.K. Kumaravel

K. Ravi, L. Vanalakshmi, R. Saraswathi

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Appeal against judgment and decree in partition suit

Remedy Sought

Appellant (2nd defendant) seeks to set aside the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.165 of 2010 dated 23.12.2016

Filing Reason

Plaintiff filed suit for partition of 1/4 share; trial court decreed suit; appellant aggrieved by decree

Previous Decisions

O.S.No.165 of 2010 decreed on 23.12.2016 by II Additional District Judge, Tiruchirappalli

Judgment Excerpts

The 1st respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for partition of his 1/4th share in the suit properties. Both Karuppanan Chettiar and Janakiammal died intestate. This Appeal Suit is filed under Section 96 r/w Order 41 Rule 1 of CPC., to set aside the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.165 of 2010, dated 23.12.2016 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Tiruchirappalli.

Procedural History

Plaintiff filed suit O.S.No.165 of 2010 for partition of 1/4th share in suit properties. Trial court (II Additional District Judge, Tiruchirappalli) decreed suit on 23.12.2016. Appellant (2nd defendant) filed appeal A.S(MD)No.110 of 2017 before Madras High Court, Madurai Bench, under Section 96 read with Order 41 Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Acts & Sections

  • Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 96, Order 41 Rule 1
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Dismisses Licensee’s Appeal Against Direct Electricity Supply by Board. Board’s Action Upheld as Comparison of Maximum Demand Under Section 19(1)(b)(ii) of Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 Required Assessment of Actual Supply, Not Gen...
Related Judgement
High Court Madras High Court Hears Appeal Against Partition Decree in Joint Family Property Suit. Appeal Filed Under Section 96 of CPC Seeks to Set Aside Decree Granting 1/4th Share to Plaintiff in Intestate Succession Case.