RAJENDHIRAN versus MUTHAIAMMAL @ MUTHAYEE & ORS.
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 81, Supreme Court of India, 2024
Outcome: Appeal(s) allowed (Granted)
Segment: Issues
* Author
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 81 : 2024 INSC 12
Case Details
Rajendhiran
v.
Muthaiammal @ Muthayee & Ors.
(Civil Appeal No.37 of 2024)
03 January 2024
[Vikram Nath* and Rajesh Bindal, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in allowing the Second 
Appeal filed by the respondents and setting aside the concurrent 
judgments of the trial court and the Sub-Judge dismissing the suit 
of the respondents and decreeing the suit.
Headnotes
Suit – Suit for declaration – Decreed by the High Court – 
Sustainability of, when on perverse findings and ignoring 
relevant material findings – Suit by the respondent seeking 
declaration that the sale deed executed was null and void; 
that suit property belonged to the respondents and for relief 
of an injunction against the defendants, on the basis of 
an oral partition whereby property was bequeathed to the 
respondents whereas the defendants denied the oral partition 
– Suit dismissed by the trial court and subordinate court – 
However, the High Court allowed the second appeal relying 
on certain documents, to support the existence of an oral 
partition – Correctness:
Held: Trial court and the first appellate court dealt with the sale 
deeds, and found that those were not sufficient to prove the oral 
partition or in any manner establish the oral partition with respect to 
the survey number in question – High Court failed to consider the 
oral as also the documentary evidence – Only on the basis of the 
two sale deeds
and one mortgage deed, which relate to different 
piece and parcels of land, the High Court recorded a perverse 
finding that oral partition had taken place – It also did not deal 
with the other findings recorded by the courts below – Thus, the 
impugned judgment cannot be sustained as it does not conform to 
the scope of s. 100 CPC as also it was perverse on appreciated 
evidence, and also ignored material evidence – Impugned judgment 
and order of the High Court is set aside and that of the trial court
82
[2024] 1 S.C.R.
DIGITAL SUPREME COURT REPORTS
and the first appellate court is confirmed, dismissing the suit of 
the respondent. [Paras 12-15]
Other Case Details Including Impugned Order and 
Appearances
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.37 of 2024.
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.07.2022 of the High Court 
of Judicature at Madras in SA No.351 of 2021.
Appearances:
M. A. Chinnasamy, K. S. Gnanasambandan, Mrs. C. Rubavathi, 
C. Raghavendren, Saurabh Gupta, Ch. Leela Sarveswar, Vinod 
Kumar Teng, Manoj Kumar Chowdhary, V. Senthil Kumar, Advs. for 
the Appellant.
Judgment / Order of The Supreme Court
Judgment
Vikram Nath, J.
1.	
Leave granted.
2.	
This appeal, by the defendants, assails the correctness of the 
judgment and order dated 28.07.2022 of the High Court of Judicature 
at Madras whereby the Second Appeal No.351/2021 filed by the 
plaintiff was allowed and the concurrent judgments of the Trial Court 
and the Sub-Judge dismissing the suit of the plaintiff-respondents 
were set aside and the suit was decreed.
3.	
Facts in nutshell are :
3.1	 The respondent instituted a suit before the Munsiff Court, 
Tiruchengode registered as OS No.200/2011 claiming relief of 
declaration that the sale deed dated 10.02.2011 executed by 
the first defendant in favour of second defendant was null and 
void and to declare that suit property belonged to the plaintiffs 
and further for relief of an injunction against the defendants. 
3.2	 According to the plaint case,
the property in question originally 
belonged to one Avinashi Gounder who had four sons namely, 
Arunachalam, Arumugam, Ramasamy and Palaniyappan. 
Plaintiff No.1 is the wife and plaintiff no.2 is the adopted 
son of Arunachalam. The first defendant is the daughter of
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 
83
RAJENDHIRAN v. MUTHAIAMMAL @ MUTHAYEE & ORS.
Palaniyappan and the second defendant is the vendee of the 
suit property from defendant no.1.
3.3	 According to the plaintiffs, the four brothers had entered into 
an oral partition and the suit property came to the share of 
Arunachalam. Subsequently Arunachalam on 16.07.2003, had 
executed a will whereby the suit property and other properties 
belonging to Arunachalam were bequeathed in favour of the 
plaintiffs. Upon the death of Arunachalam on 30.04.2006, the 
plaintiffs became the absolute owners of the property in suit. 
Further case of the plaintiffs was that plaintiff no.2 and defendant 
no.2 were running a partnership business and the property in 
suit was offered as a security to the Karur Vysya Bank. It was 
the second defendant who had signed the loan papers and 
the security papers with the Bank. As the loan amount could 
not be repaid by defendant no.2, it was plaintiff no.2 who had 
cleared the outstanding loan of the Bank. Further it is claimed 
that defendant no.2 clandestinely obtained the sale deed on 
10.02.2011 in respect of the suit property from the first defendant. 
It was further the case of the plaintiff that the entire property 
which was allotted to Palaniyappan (father of defendant no.1) 
had been sold by defendant no.1 on 15.07.1981 with specific 
boundaries to one Mathiyalagan. It was thus the claim of the 
plaintiffs that the defendants would not have any right over 
the
properties of Avinashi Gounder and that the plaintiffs were 
in possession and were cultivating the land in suit but as the 
defendant no.2 tried to trespass the suit property on 24.07.2011, 
the necessity for filing the suit arose. 
3.4	 The defendants filed their written statement denying that there 
was any oral partition between the sons of Avinashi Gounder 
with respect to the suit property. They also denied that plaintiff 
no.2 was the adopted son of Arunachalam. The defendants 
had further pleaded that survey number in question had a total 
area of 2.17 cents in which Avanashigounder’s family had 1/3rd 
share i.e. 72 cents. These 72 cents were partitioned amongst 
the three sons of Avanashigounder namely, Arunachalam, 
Ramasamy and Palaniyappan. The fourth son Arumugam had 
died issueless and his share was equally shared by the three 
brothers. Thus, each brother became entitled to 24 cents. 
Palaniyappan, father of defendant no.1 had 24 cents in this
84
[2024] 1 S.C.R.
DIGITAL SUPREME COURT REPORTS
property, out of which 12 cents fell to the share of defendant 
no.1, out of which, she sold 11 cents to the second defendant. 
Plaintiffs had set up a case without any basis only in order to 
deprive the defendants of their property. It was also pleaded 
that there were other co-owners in survey number in question 
who had not been impleaded as defendants, as such the suit 
was bad in law for non-joinder of necessary parties. 
4.	
The Trial Court framed the following six issues on the basis of the 
pleadings of the parties: 
(i).	
Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of declaration as 
prayed for?
(ii).	 Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of permanent injunction 
as prayed for?
(iii).	 Whether the husband of the 1st plaintiff executed a will on 
16.07.2003?
(iv).	 Whether the 2nd plaintiff is the legal heir of the deceased 
Arunachalam?
(v).	 Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? 
(vi).	 To what other relief?
5.	
The parties led oral and documentary evidence. Both the plaintiffs 
examined themselves as PW 1 and PW 2 and one Mathiyalagan 
was examined as PW 3 and they proved six papers Exh.A1 to A6. 
On behalf of the defendants one Balarajendra was examined as 
DW1 and he proved six papers Exh.B1 to B6. Both the defendants 
did not enter the witness box. 
6.	
The Trial Court discussed the evidence threadbare and recorded 
the following findings:
(i).	
Both the plaintiffs had pleaded
that Arunachalam had executed 
a will on 16.07.2003 but they failed to prove the said will deed 
in accordance to the statutory provisions contained in Section 
68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and also under Section 
63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1956. Thus, their claim on the 
basis of the will was not found to be substantiated;
(ii).	 The suit was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties as the 
co-owners/co-sharers were not impleaded as defendants;
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 
85
RAJENDHIRAN v. MUTHAIAMMAL @ MUTHAYEE & ORS.
(iii).	 The plaintiffs were not the owners of the property in suit, they 
had not been able to prove the oral partition and as such were 
found to be not entitled to any relief.
7.	
Accordingly, it dismissed the suit, vide judgment dated 08.09.2015. 
8.	
The plaintiffs preferred an appeal which was registered as Appeal Suit 
No.55/2016. The Subordinate Court, Tiruchengodu, vide judgment 
dated 27.11.2020, after considering the evidence on record, approved 
the findings recorded by the Trial Court and, accordingly, dismissed 
the appeal. Once again specific findings were recorded that the oral 
partition had not been proved by the plaintiffs. For the said purpose, 
both the Courts below had relied upon the evidence led by the parties, 
both oral and documentary. 
9.	
The First Appellate Court also approved the finding regarding non-
joinder of necessary parties. 
10.	 Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs preferred Second Appeal before 
the High Court, registered as Second Appeal No.351/2021. The 
High Court proceeded on the premise that the only dispute was with 
respect to the oral partition, as to whether oral partition had taken 
place or not and if yes, whether it was duly proved? The High Court 
relied upon Ex.A-3, A-4 and Ex.B-3 to hold that there had been an 
oral partition. Ex.A-3 is the Mortgage Deed dated 13.10.2009. Ex.A-4 
is the Sale Deed dated 15.07.1981. Ex.B-3 is the Sale Deed dated
02.05.2008. All these three documents were relied upon only for the 
reason that they mentioned boundaries. Based only on the finding 
that oral partition was proved, the High Court allowed the second 
appeal and after setting aside the judgments of the Courts below 
decreed the suit. 
11.	 Heard counsel for the appellants. Despite service of notice, no one 
appeared on behalf of the respondents. 
12.	 The two sale deeds relate to different properties and not to survey 
number in question. Whether any partition with respect to the survey 
number in question had taken place or not, is not borne out from 
the record. The suit property was never recorded in the name of 
the plaintiffs or for that matter, husband of plaintiff no.1, at any time. 
The will which was the basis of the claim of the plaintiff, had not 
been found to be proved in accordance to law. The Trial Court and 
the First Appellate Court had dealt with the documents Exh.A-4 and
86
[2024] 1 S.C.R.
DIGITAL SUPREME COURT REPORTS
B-3, the two sale deeds, and found that these were not sufficient to 
prove the oral partition or in any manner establish the oral partition 
with respect to the survey number in question.
13.	 Interestingly although the plaintiffs set up a case that the land in suit 
was coming from Avinashi Gounder but on record, two pattas were 
filed which establish that the survey number in question had been 
allotted in the name of plaintiff no.1 and eight others jointly with respect 
to which there was no partition. This fact had been admitted by the 
plaintiffs in their deposition. All these aspects had been considered 
by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court but the High Court 
failed to consider the oral as also the documentary evidence. Only 
on the basis of the two sale deeds and one mortgage deed, which 
relate to different piece and parcels of land, the High Court recorded 
a perverse finding that oral partition had taken place. It also did not 
deal with the other findings recorded by the Courts below.
14.	 In view of the above discussion and on the findings recorded above, 
the impugned judgment cannot be sustained as it not only does not 
conform to the scope of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 
1908 but also as it was perverse on appreciated evidence, and also 
ignoring material evidence. 
15.	 The appeal is, accordingly, allowed. The impugned judgment and 
order of the High Court is set aside and that of
the Trial Court and 
the First Appellate Court is confirmed. The suit of the respondent-
plaintiff stands dismissed. 
16.	 There shall be no order as to costs.
Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain
Result of the case: Appeal allowed.