IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA AT NEW DELHI

(CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION)

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. OF 2023
[Arising out of order of the Madras High Court, The High Court of Tamil
Nadu & Puducherry at Chennai dated 14.02.2022 passed in
SA.No.66/2022 & CMP.No.1450/2022]

Kalyani & others …Plaintiff

- versus -

H.M.A Sadhula & others …Defendant

SYNOPSYS

The petitioner is the purchaser of the suit two items property vide

registered sale deeds dated 27.09.1985 & 07.10.1985 from one

shekkasim. The survey number of the suit 1st item is 129/10 and

it relates to natham and the survey number of the 2nd item is

129/2 and it relates to patta land. Originally the lands in survey

No. 129/10 & 129/2 were belonged to brothers namely shek

Gulam Gouse and shek Batchi Sahib. From the entire extent the

Shek Gulam Gouse took southern half portion and the shek
Batchi Sahib took northern half portion. The said shek Batchi

Sahib had his share in both the survey numbers. The shek

Batchi Sahib died before 23 years as intestate leaving behind his

wife Gudubee and sons Shek Sabsan and Shekkasim and all of

them had share in the Shek batchi Saib’s properties and their

shares are 1/8 I.e 2/16 for mother, and for sons 7/16

respectively. In that the mother Gudubee settled her share to her

younger son Shekkasim through a registered settlement deed

dated 10.11.1964. Even in the settlement deed dated 10.11.1964

reffered and described the deed property with the survey No.

129/2 – 0.10 and its boundaries shows that the settled property

is in the survey No. 129/10 and 129/1 so after the settlement

individually the shekkasim has 7/16 share in shek Batchi Sahib

properties, and the Shekkasim has 9/16 share in the properties.

The 1st defendant purchased 5 cents in survey No. 129/2 from

one Shahjahan, who is the son of Shek Sbsan on 06.09.1974

(Shek Sabsan is the elder brother of shekkasim). The 1st

defendant has no right to purchase 5 cent from Shahjahan in the

northern side of survey No. 129/2 and no right to occupy in

western side of natham land. The Shek Sabsan and his son

Shahjahan had no rights in the suit property entirely. Therefore

the said Shahjahan has no right to sell the right of plaintiff’s

vendor’s share of 9/16 in the property and the 1st defendant had

no right to occupy and build the house. Since the Plaintiff

purchased undivided 9/16 share of the Shekkasim, the Petitioner

has right to get partition in the suit property. The Petitioner gave

notice to the 1st defendant on 25.10.1985 and she gave false

reply. Hence he approached the court and filed this suit for

partition.

SYNOPSYS OF WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE

1ST DEFENDANT DATED 21.08.1986

The first defendant purchased the suit property from Shahjahan,

who is the son of Shek Sabsan on 06.09.1974. Previously She

was in possession as tenant along with her husband. The Shek

Batchi Sahib died before 25 years and not 23 years. After Shek

Batchi Sahib’s death his sons Shek sabsan and shekkasim had

not lived amicably therefore, there was a partition between the

brothers and at that time the mother Gudubee stated that she is
releasing her share and in that partition the entire suit property

was allotted to Shek sabsan. After allotment, the Shek Sbasan

enjoyed the suit property by building a house and rented it by

excluding and ousting the shekkasim and his family members.

This 1st defendant obtained the suit property for rent from shek

sabsan from 01.03.1962. On 17.02.1962, 1st defendant’s

husband sundram pillai and Shek sabsan entered a lease

agreement. After the death of Shek sabsan his son Shahjahan

inherited and enjoyed like his father and the said shahjahansold

it to the 1st defendant on 06.09.1974 for Rs 10,000/- From last

25 years the shek sabsan and his son enjoyed the suit property

by ousting others. The plaintiff is in the southern portion and

there was difference of opinion arose during construction of front

and rear walls and throwing of garbage from plaintiffs lodge into

defendants property. With a view to disturb it the plaintiff

purchased the peoperty at low cost and filed the suit. Further the

settlement deed dated 10.11.1964 is not genuine and signature is

not of the Gudubee, further it is fabricated and not accepted and

not acted upon. After the purchase of the suit property by the

defendant, the defendant modelled the house and built with

various amenities and made it as worthy and high value

property. The Plaintiff and his predecessor in title are not having

right to claim any share in the suit property. Hence prayed to

dismiss the suit.

LIST OF DATES

04.12.1985 Plaint in OS. No.11 of 1986 on the file

subordinate and the same renumbered as O.S

No. 10/2012 on the file of Principal District

Munsif Court, Vridhachalam.

20.06.1986 written statement filed by the defendant in OS.

No. 11 of 1986 on the file of subordinate Court,

Vridhachalam and the same renumbered as

OS.No. 10/2012 on the file of Principal District

Munsif Court, Vridhachalam.

30.11.1990 Originally, the suit in O.S No.11/1986 was tried

and decree was passed by the subordinate court,

Vridhachalam. Against which the defendants 1 to

11 preferred appeal before the Hon’ble High Court

, In A.S 313/1991 and the Hon’ble High Court set

asided the decree of the trial court and remitted

 back it for trial. On the Pecuniary jurisdiction

point the trial court sent it to the Principal

District Munsif Court , Vridhachalam and the

original suit was renumbered as O.S 10/2014

and tried it and passed the decree on 02.01.2014.

02.01.2014 Appeal is filed against the decree and judgement

of the learned Principal District Court,

Vridachalam in O.S .No. 10/2014.

20.01.2021 Appeal has come before this Court for hearing in

the presence of Through R.Vinayagam,

M.V.Annamalai, Maya.Manikandan, C.

Arasarkandarathidasozan, J.K Deepan

Chakravarthi, k.kalidhasan, k.Sambath

Advocates for the Appellants and through

R.Viswesawaran, R.Kalaivannan,

R.Sangarganesh Advocates for 1st respondent,

whereas respondents 2to 5 have remained

exparte, after hearing the arguments on both

sides and upon persuing the case records and

 having stood over for consideration till this date,

this court passed the following Judgement, This

appeal is preferred to set aside the judgement

and decree dated 02.01.2014 passed by the

Principal District Munsif Court in O.S No.

10/2014. The appellant is the defendant in O.S

No. 10/2014 on the file of Principal District

Munsif Court, Vridhachalam, who has filed the

suit for the releifs of partition and for cost.

29.01.2021 Judgement and decree in A.S.No. 22 of 2014 on

the file of Additional Subordinate Judge,

Vridhachalam.

17.12.2021 Memorandum of Grounds of Second appeal is

filed in the High Court of Judicature at Madras.

14.02.2022 The Second Appeal is dismissed confirming the

judgment and decree dated 29.01.2021 made in

AS.No.22/2014 by the learned Additional

Subordinate Judge, Vridhachalam confirming the

judgment and decree dated 02.01.2014 made in

OS.No.10/2012 by the learned Principal District

 Munsif, Vridhachalam. No costs. Consequently,

connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

IN THE MATTER OF:

1. Kalyani
w/o. Rajeswaran,
Puthur Village,
Sirkali Taluk,
Nagapattinam District.

2. Kasilingam,
S/o. Sundaram Pillai,
No.814, Junction Road,
Vridhachalam,
Cuddalore District.

3. Pazhamalai,
S/o. Sundaram Pillai,
No.814, Junction Road,
Vridhachalam,
Cuddalore District.

4. Balambikai
w/o. Ganesan,
Block No. 21623,
Thillai Kali ammal nagar,
Amma Pettai,
Chidambaram Taluk,
Cuddalore District.

5. Kubendiran
s/o. Kalyamurthi,
No.814, Junction Road,
Vridhachalam,
Cuddalore District.
6. Vasan
s/o. Kalyamurthi,
No.814, Junction Road,
Vridhachalam,
Cuddalore District.
…Repondents/Appellants/Appellants

1. H.M.A Sadhula,
s/o. H.M.A Abdul Wahib Sahib,
s/o. Kalyamurthi,
No.814, Junction Road,
Vridhachalam,
Cuddalore District.
…Plaintiff/ Respondents/ Respondents
2. Julaigabeevi,
w/o. shajahan,
4th street Mullai Nagar,
Kaspa Vridhachalam,
Cuddalore District.

3. Riyas,
s/o. Shajahan,
No. 17/9,
Abdulkalam Azaad Street,
Vridhachalam,
Cuddalore District.

4. Shek Musharath,
s/o. . Shajahan,
No. 17/9,
Abdulkalam Azaad Street,
Vridhachalam,
Cuddalore District.

5. Riswana,
 w/o. Muabarak
House Behind Selvamuthu Mariyammal Koil,
Pudhu Nagar,
Vadalur.
…Respondents/ Respondents/ Respondents

6. Indirani
w/o. Sivanesan,
Ambasamuthram Village and Taluk,
Tirunelveli.
7. Malinga,
w/o. Murugesan,
Appa Pillai LANE,
Kaspa Chidambram,
Cuddalore District.
8. Kaveri
w/o Rajagopal,
No.814, Junction Road,
Vridhachalam,
Cuddalore District.
9. Ambika,
w/o. Ravi,
No. 65-112 D,
G.K.S Nagar,
Opp. Govt I.T.I on Madhagiri Road,
Hosur,
Krishnagiri District.
…Respondents/Appellants/ Respondents

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
TO
The Hon’ble Chief Justice of India and
His Companion Justices of
The Supreme Court of India.

The humble petition of the above-named petitioner most

respectfully
SHOWETH:
1. That the present Special Leave Petition (Civil) is filled
against Order dated 14.02.2022 of the Madras High Court,
The High Court of Tamil Nadu & Puducherry at Chennai
passed in SA.No.66/2022 & CMP.No.1450/2022.

2. That the present petition raises an important question of

law for consideration before this Hon’ble court.

3. GROUNDS OF APPEAL

a) The Judgement and Decree of the courts below are

substantially erroneous and is weight of evidence and
probabilities of the case.

b) The courts below ought not to have granted partition to

the 1st respondent conferring 9/16 th share to him.

c) The courts below failed to see that the appellants mother

kasiammal had purchased both the items of property
from one shajahan vided sale dated 06.09.1974 (EX. B-7)
and her possession is certified vide patta (Ex. B-8).

d) The Courts below failed to see that the Appellants had

been in possession from the year 1962 onwards in the
suit property.
 e) The Courts below failed to see that the Appellants mother
become a tenant under her Vendor’s father Shek Sabsan
and in proof thereof had filed original lease deed Vide Ex.
B-1 and rental receipts vide Ex. B-2 and B-3.

f) The courts below further failed to see that the original

owner Sheik Sabsan had infact mortgaged the suit
properties in favour of Appellants mother Vide Mortgage
deed 07-101968 (Ex. B-4).

g) The Courts below failed to see that the Appellant’s mother

had perfected title by adverse posession and her
posession is proved by Patta Ex. B-8 and B-9 tax receipts.

h) The Courts below further failed to that the 1 st Respondent

having claimed title had not proved validity of the parent
document namely the settlement deed executed by
Gudubee in favour of Sheik kasim vide settlement deed
dated 10.11.1964 (Ex. A-1)

i) In any view of the matter, the judgement and Decree of

the Courts below are erroneous and Liable to be set aside.

4. DECLARATION IN TERMS OF RULE 2(2)

That no other Special Leave Petition is pending/filed before
any court filed by the petitioners in connection with the
above noted case and the present Special Leave Petition is
filed bonafide and for the ends of justice.

5. DECLARATION IN TERMS OF RULE 4

The petitioners submits that the Annexures Produced along
with the present Special Leave Petition are the true copies of
 the pleading/documents which formed part of the records of
the case in the court below against whose order the leave to
appeal is sought for in this petition.

PRAYER
In the premises the petitioner herein prays that this
hon’ble court may graciously be pleased to:
i) Grant special leave to appeal to the petitioner against
judgement and order dated 14.02.2022 of the high
court of Madras at Chennai in in SA.No.66/2022 &
CMP.No.1450/2022.
ii) Pass any other order which this Hon’ble court may
deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of
the case in favour of the petitioner.
 FILED BY

(ADEEL AHMED)
Advocate for the Petitioner