IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT MUNSIF CUM JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,

ANNUR.

PRESENT: [Link], B.A., B.L., L.L.M.,

District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Annur.

On this Monday, the 16th day of June, 2025.

[Link]. 38/2023
([Link].TNCB21-000555-2023)

Previous case details of this case:-

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MUNSIF, COIMBATORE.
[Link]. 1434/2015
([Link].TNCB090017782015)

Devanasamy ... Plaintiff

/Versus/
[Link]
[Link]
[Link]
[Link]
[Link]
[Link]
[Link]
[Link]
[Link]
[Link]
[Link]
[Link]
[Link]
[Link]
[Link]
[Link]
[Link]
[Link]
[Link]
[Link]
[Link]

O.S. No. 38/2023 1 DM cum JM, Annur

[Link]
[Link]
[Link]
[Link]
[Link] Shanthi ... Defendants

This suit came up for final hearing before this court in the presence of

[Link], the learned advocate for the Plaintiff and in the presence of

[Link], the learned advocate for the 26 th Defendant, the defendants 1 to 25

remained exparte till date and after hearing both sides, upon perusing the entire

material records and having stood over for consideration till this date, this court

delivered the following:

JUDGEMENT

This suit has been filed by the plaintiff for the relief of declaration and

consequential permanent injunction along with the cost of the suit. The prayer for the

declaration is related to declare the sale deed dated 28.08.2014 executed by the

defendants 1 to 25 in favour of the 26 th defendant in respect of suit property and the

consequential permanent injunction restraining the 26th defendant from alienating or

encumbering the suit property.

2. GIST OF THE PLAINT:

The suit property along with some other properties were originally belonged to

the Plaintiff’s maternal grandfather Subbanna Gounder and his brother Chinna Palani

O.S. No. 38/2023 2 DM cum JM, Annur

Gounder jointly by virtue of the sale deed in document number 1492/1933 dated

24.11.1933 in the Annur Sub Registrar Office. Subsequent to that, an oral partition

effected between them and the suit property vested with Subbanna Gounder. The

plaintiff’s maternal grandfather - Subbanna Gounder had two sons and four daughters

– Vaiyapuri Gounder, Angathal, Palanathal, Arukani, Ramathal and Aruchamy(1st

defendant).

To understand the relationship of the defendants 1 to 25 with that of the

Subbanna Gounder, it is narrated here under :

 The 6th son of [Link] Gounder is this first defendant Aaruchamy. His

daughters are the 2nd, 4th, 6th defendants. The 3rd defendant, 5th defendant are the

sons of the 2nd defendant and the 4th defendant respectively. The 8th defendant is

the daughter of 6th defendant.

 The first son of [Link] Gounder is [Link] Gounder and his wife

is the 9th defendant Karuppathal. They had no issues.

 The daughter of [Link] Gounder – Ramathal is the 10 th defendant and

11th, 12th defendant are her son and daughter respectively.

 The 13th and 14th defendants are the son and daughter of Palanathal, the daughter

of [Link] Gounder.

 The 15th, 16th defendants are the daughter and son of Arukani, the daughter of

[Link] Gounder. Arukani also had another deceased son – Vellingiri

O.S. No. 38/2023 3 DM cum JM, Annur

 Gounder and his son is the 25th defendant herein.

 The plaintiff, his sister - 17th defendant and the demised mother of 18 th, 19th and

20th defendant named Subbathal are the children of Angathal, the daughter of

[Link] Gounder.

 [Link] Gounder had one brother – Subbaiya Gounder. His daughter is

the 21st defendant and the defendants 22 to 24 are the daughters of the 21 st

defendant.

Subbanna Gounder died intestate in the year 1970. After his demise, the suit

property was in the joint possession of the plaintiff and the defendants 1 to 25 as a

Hindu Undivided Joint Family Property in ancestral nature. Since the property being

an agricultural land, the plaintiff during March, 2015 approached his maternal uncle,

the 1st defendant for partition and separate possession of the suit property but he had

not responded. Subsequently, the plaintiff came to know that the defendants 1 to 25

had executed a registered sale deed in favour of 26 th defendant by virtue of sale deed

in document number dated 5415/2014 dated 28.08.2014. Since the suit property is an

ancestral property, this plaintiff and the defendants 1 to 25 were having equal shares

but the defendants 1 to 25 had executed sale deed by neglecting the plaintiff. The 26 th

defendant also never nodded for the request of the plaintiff to cancel the above said

sale deed. Since the 26th defendant purchased the suit property after having knowledge

about it with intention to cheat and betray the plaintiff, the present suit to declare that

O.S. No. 38/2023 4 DM cum JM, Annur

sale deed as null and void and the subsequent relief of permanent injunction was filed.

The plaintiff prayed to decree the suit as prayed for and for the cost of the suit.

3. After due service of summons, the defendants 1 to 25 were not appeared before

the Court, set exparte and remained exparte till date. The 26 th defendant alone

appeared, filed the written statement and contested the suit.

4. CRUX OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE 26TH DEFENDANT:

After denial of the pleadings of the plaintiff, the case set out in the written

statement were comprised as follows. The suit property was purchased by the late

Subbanna Gounder and Chinna Palani Gounder out of the income derived from the

joint family income and so the suit property is the ancestral property. The plaintiff is

the grandson of Subbanna Gounder through his daughter Angathal. She was married in

the year 1944, after providing sufficient ‘Seer Varisai’. After her marriage, she lived

separately with her husband and she had no entitlement over the suit property. So the

plaintiff is not entitled to claim any share in the suit property under his mother,

Angathal. Apart from the suit property, other remaining properties of the late

Subbanna Gounder was sold to one Gnanaprakash vide sale deed in document number

5417/2014 on the same date of the sale deed regarding the suit property but the

plaintiff never taken any proceedings regarding that sale. This suit was filed only with

evil intention to extract money from the 26 th defendant. The 26th defendant is the

bonafide purchaser of the suit property for proper consideration. The plaintiff is not in

the possession of the property, he has no pre existing right, title or interest in the suit

O.S. No. 38/2023 5 DM cum JM, Annur

property and so he is not entitled for both the reliefs claimed by him. Since the

plaintiff never approached the court with clean hands, suit is not properly valued, no

prima facie case existed in favour of plaintiff and the suit itself is an abuse process of

law, this 26th defendant prayed to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs.

5. After considering the pleadings of both side parties, the court had framed the

following issues for trial.

1. Whether the sale deed dated 28.8.2014 executed by defendants 1 to 25

in favour of the 26th defendant should be declared as null and void?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction

against the 26th defendant as prayed for?

3. To what other reliefs the plaintiff is entitled?

6. On the side of the plaintiff, the plaintiff has examined himself as P.W-1 through

proof affidavit and marked Exhibits A1 and A2. On the side of the 26 th defendant, she

was examined herself as D.W-1 through proof affidavit and marked Exhibits B1 to B4.

7. Arguments advanced by the Plaintiff:-

The plaintiff counsel placed his contentions that the 26 th defendant itself agreed

the relationship of the plaintiff with the original owner of the suit property, the

maternal grandfather of the plaintiff named Subbanna Gounder. All other legal heirs of

the Subbanna Gounder had executed the alleged sale deed in favour of the 26 th

O.S. No. 38/2023 6 DM cum JM, Annur

defendant. The 26th defendant, who was born much later after the marriage of the

plaintiff’s mother cannot able to depose anything about when and how the marriage to

the plaintiff’s mother was performed by her family. The 26 th defendant is not a family

member of the plaintiff and so she is not having any capacity to state that the

plaintiff’s mother was given married with sufficient ‘Seer Varisai’. The 26 th defendant

had no right to deny the right of the plaintiff and his mother over the suit property and

she intends to cheat the plaintiff’s share along with the other defendants. Since the

plaintiff had proved the case, it is prayed to decree the suit as prayed for along with the

cost and render justice.

8. Arguments advanced by the Defendant:-

The contentions placed before the court during arguments of the 26 th defendant

is follows. The plaintiff’s maternal uncle stated that the plaintiff’s mother was married

in 1944 after providing sufficient Seer Varisai. So the plaintiff’s mother had no share

in the suit property and thereby the plaintiff cannot claim any share in the suit property

on her mother’s inheritance. The plaintiff never took any steps to claim any right in

other properties of his maternal grandfather Subbanna Gounder, which was disposed

off on the same day of the disputed sale deed. The plaintiff filed this suit only with

intention to grab the money from this 26th defendant and his action of litigating over

only the suit property by leaving behind other properties of the plaintiff’s maternal

grandfather shows that he didn’t approached the court with clean hands and so prayed

to dismiss the suit with exemplary cost.

O.S. No. 38/2023 7 DM cum JM, Annur

DISCUSSION & DECISION:

9. The following facts are admitted and undisputed facts by the plaintiff as well as

the 26th defendant.

The plaintiff is the grandson and Subbanna Gounder is the maternal grandfather

of the plaintiff. The suit property was purchased by the late Subbanna Gounder and his

brother jointly. Subbanna Gounder died intestate. During the life time of the deceased

Subbanna Gounder, he entered into an Oral Partition with his brother and the suit

property allotted to him.

Issue No.1

10. The Plaintiff had examined himself as PW1 and marked two documents as

exhibits - Ex.A1 and Ex.A2. Exhibit A1 is the sale deed for the suit property,

purchased in the name of Subbanna Gounder, dated 24.11.1933. Exhibit A2 is the sale

deed executed by defendants 1 to 25 in favour of the 26th defendant. No other

documentary evidence was submitted by the plaintiff. Although there is no

documentary evidence on record to establish that the plaintiff is the grandson of the

late Subbanna Gounder through his daughter Angathal, the 26th defendant admitted

that Subbanna Gounder is the plaintiff’s maternal grandfather. Therefore, there is no

dispute regarding the plaintiff’s relationship with the late Subbanna Gounder.

11. The plaintiff contended that defendants 1 to 20 and 25 are the surviving legal

O.S. No. 38/2023 8 DM cum JM, Annur

heirs of the late Subbanna Gounder through his two sons and four daughters, namely:

1. Vaiyapuri Gounder, 2. Angathal, 3. Palanathal, 4. Arukani, 5. Ramathal, and

[Link]. Among these six individuals, the 5th and 6th are still alive and have

been impleaded as the 10th and 1st defendants in this suit.

12. From Exhibit A1, the ownership of the suit property by the late Subbanna

Gounder, along with his brother, has been established before this court. The recitals in

Exhibit A2 also indicate the relationship of defendants 1 to 25 with Subbanna Gounder

as claimed by the plaintiff. None of the defendants 1 to 25 appeared before this court

after service of summons, and they have remained exparte to date. Therefore, no

evidence has been submitted to contradict the claimed relationship between the

plaintiff, the defendants 1 to 25, and the late Subbanna Gounder.

13. In these circumstances, when the plaintiff claimed to be the grandson of

Subbanna Gounder through his daughter, Angathal, and this was not specifically

denied by any of the defendants 1 to 25 but was explicitly admitted by the 26th

defendant, who acknowledged that the late Subbanna Gounder is the plaintiff’s

maternal grandfather, the recitals of Exhibit A2 were analyzed. The 17th defendant,

namely Kaliammal, executed the Exhibit A2 sale deed in her capacity as the daughter

of the deceased Angathal. The 18th defendant, Sanmugasundaram, the 19th defendant,

Poongodi, and the 20th defendant, Kalamani, executed the same sale deed in their

capacity as the children of the deceased Subbakkal, who was another daughter of the

O.S. No. 38/2023 9 DM cum JM, Annur

said Angathal. Neither the plaintiff nor the 26th defendant, in their pleadings,

explicitly stated the plaintiff’s relationship to any of the defendants as described

above. However, from the plaint pleadings, and the relationship details mentioned in

Exhibit A2, it can be inferred that the 17th defendant is the sister of the plaintiff, and

Subbakkal—the deceased mother of defendants 18 to 20 was also a sister of the

plaintiff. Thus, it is understood that the deceased Angathal, daughter of the late

Subbanna Gounder, had three children: the plaintiff, the 17th defendant (Kaliammal),

and the deceased Subbakkal. Furthermore, Exhibit A2 clearly shows that defendants

17 to 20 executed the said sale deed without including the plaintiff, who is also a son

of Angathal.

14. The plaintiff claimed that the Exhibit A2 sale deed, executed by defendants 1 to

25 on 28.08.2014 in favour of the 26th defendant, should be declared invalid, null, and

void. The 26th defendant, in her written statement, pleaded that the plaintiff’s mother,

Angathal, was given in marriage in 1944 after receiving sufficient Seer Varisai;

therefore, she is not entitled to any share in the suit property, and consequently, the

plaintiff is also not entitled to claim any share in the suit property as the heir of the late

Angathal. When the 26th defendant claims that Angathal had no share in the suit

property, she failed to plead or provide evidence explaining why the Exhibit A2 sale

deed was executed by one sister of the plaintiff and the legal heirs of another deceased

sister of the plaintiff (defendants 18 to 20).

O.S. No. 38/2023 10 DM cum JM, Annur

15. Since the 26th defendant argued that the plaintiff’s mother, being a daughter of

Subbanna Gounder, was given in marriage and therefore is not entitled to any share in

the suit property, there is nothing on record or in the pleadings explaining why the

legal heirs of the other three married daughters of Subbanna Gounder also executed

the sale deed, Exhibit A2. All the above discussions show that defendants 1 to 25

collectively executed the sale deed in favour of the 26th defendant with regard to the

suit property, concealing the plaintiff’s rights over it. This act by defendants 1 to 25

demonstrates that they intended to defeat the plaintiff’s rights over the suit property.

The plaintiff, being one of the legal heirs and legal representatives of Angathal, the

daughter of Subbanna Gounder, actually has rights over the suit property based on the

proportion that would have been inherited by his mother.

16. As per the pleadings in the plaint and the evidence of PW1, he deposed that he

approached his maternal uncle, the 1st defendant, for an amicable partition of the suit

property; however, this was denied by him. Later, the plaintiff became aware of the

execution of Exhibit A2 by defendants 1 to 25. Neither party contended that any suit

regarding the partition of the suit property had been filed by the plaintiff. The 26th

defendant deposed that the property was bona fide purchased by her for valuable

consideration, that the revenue records were mutated in her name, and she exhibited

documents Ex.B2 to Ex.B4 in support of her contention. It was also claimed and

deposed by the 26th defendant that the plaintiff intentionally filed this suit for a

declaration without any prayer for the partition of the suit property or the other

O.S. No. 38/2023 11 DM cum JM, Annur

properties owned by his maternal grandfather, Subbanna Gounder.

17. The 26th defendant, who examined herself as DW1, exhibited Ex.B1, a sale

deed executed on 28.08.2014, the same date as the execution of Exhibit A2 in her

favour by defendants 1 to 25. The 26th defendant contended that the plaintiff, without

claiming any right over the entire family property and without praying for any relief

with regard to the property mentioned in Exhibit B1, which is also part of the family

property, is not entitled to claim any declaratory or partition relief in respect of the suit

property. The plaintiff challenged the above contention by deposing that he was not

aware of the documents executed in favour of defendants 3, 4, and 7. However, the

plaintiff also failed to explain whether any steps were taken by him against the other

properties alleged to be owned by Subbanna Gounder, including the one transacted in

Exhibit B1.

18. It is not the case of the plaintiff that he took any steps to partition the suit

property or to obtain separate possession of the same, to which he is entitled under his

mother’s share. Although the plaintiff pleaded that he initially approached the 1st

defendant, his maternal uncle, for the partition of the suit property, he failed to explain

why he did not claim partition and only sought a declaration against Exhibit A2.

Defendants 1 to 25 have rights over the suit property proportionate to their respective

claims, like the plaintiff. However, the plaintiff failed to plead the extent of the suit

property to which he is entitled. There are also no pleadings regarding the extent of the

O.S. No. 38/2023 12 DM cum JM, Annur

property to which defendants 1 to 25 are collectively entitled. In such circumstances,

since the plaintiff failed to plead the extent of the property he claims, he cannot pray

for a declaration that Exhibit A2 is wholly null and void. Defendants 1 to 25 had the

right to transfer the suit property to the extent of their respective entitlements. The

plaintiff cannot interfere with Exhibit A2 to the extent of the rights available to

defendants 1 to 25.

19. Since the plaintiff failed to seek the relief of partition, which is the primary

relief that should be claimed by him, with respect to the prayer of declaration as

sought for by the plaintiff, this court would like to get aid from the provision – Section

34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 which states as below:

“34. Discretion of court as to declaration of status or right.—Any person entitled to any

legal character, or to any right as to any property, may institute a suit against any person denying, or

interested to deny, his title to such character or right, and the court may in its discretion make

therein a declaration that he is so entitled, and the plaintiff need not in such suit ask for any further

relief:

Provided that no court shall make any such declaration where the plaintiff, being able to seek

further relief than a mere declaration of title, omits to do so.”

The above proviso clause clearly stated that if the plaintiff who is able to seek further

relief than a mere declaration and omits to do so, no court shall make any such

declaration as sought for by the plaintiff. In the present case on hand, the primary

relief that shall be available for the plaintiff, who is absolutely having a share in the

suit property, was actually failed to seek that partition relief and only opted to seek for

O.S. No. 38/2023 13 DM cum JM, Annur

complete declaration of the Ex.A2 as null and void, which was executed by the

defendants 1 to 25, who were also having right in the suit property. In this scenario,

when the plaintiff failed to seek partition and also failed to plea as to what extent he is

entitled for in the suit property, this court finds that the plaintiff is not entitled for

relief of declaration of Ex.A2 as null and void as a whole, when it was executed by the

other persons who were also had right over it. Hence, this court finds answer for this

issue in negative to the plaintiff.

Issue No. 2:

20. Based on the discussion regarding issue no. 1 above, since the plaintiff failed to

plead the extent of his entitlement in the suit property, this court cannot vaguely issue

an injunction order restraining the 26th defendant from alienating or encumbering the

suit property in favor of any other person. Hence, the court answers this issue in the

negative, against the plaintiff.

Issue No. 3:

21. Since both the above issues were found in negative to the plaintiff, this court

finds that the plaintiff is not entitled for any other relief. The parties has to bear their

own cost.

In the result, the suit is dismissed without cost.

O.S. No. 38/2023 14 DM cum JM, Annur

 Partly typed by me and partly dictated to Steno-typist by me, directly typed by

her in the official desktop and corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this

16th day of June, 2025.

Sd/- [Link]
District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate,
Annur.

Plaintiff side Evidence:

PW1 – Devanasamy.

Plaintiffs side Exhibits:

Ex.A.1 24.11.1933 Sale deed document No.1492/1933 – Certified copy

Ex.A.2 28.08.2014 Sale deed document No.5415/2014 – Certified copy

Defendant Side Evidence:

DW1 – Revathi Santhi.

Defendant Side Exhibits :

Ex.B.1 28.08.2014 Sale deed document No.5417/2014 – Certified copy

Ex.B.2 23.08.2015 Kunnathur village, Patta No.223 – Certified copy
Ex.B.3 09.09.2019 Kunnathur village, Patta No.3572 – Certified copy
Ex.B.4 01.0.2023, Tax Receipt – 5 Counts
19.03.2022,
25.02.2021,
04.03.2020,
05.03.2019

Sd/- [Link]
District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate,
Annur.
Draft / Fair Judgment
[Link]. 38/2023.
Dated: 16.06.2025.
DM cum JM, Annur.

O.S. No. 38/2023 15 DM cum JM, Annur