High Court's Allowance of Second Appeal for Oral Partition Is Set Aside; Trial and First-Stage Appellate Orders Restored

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta of the Supreme Court heard an appeal by the defendants challenging the Madras High Court’s July 28, 2022 judgment which had allowed a second appeal and decreed a suit based on an alleged oral partition and related title claims. The issue before the Court was whether the High Court correctly reversed concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court that the plaintiffs had not proved title, oral partition or the testamentary document relied upon.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court judgment and confirmed the findings of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, thereby dismissing the plaintiffs’ suit. The Court held that the High Court’s conclusion that an oral partition was proved rested on documents relating to different properties and therefore was perverse on appreciation of evidence and contrary to the scope of Section 100, Code of Civil Procedure. The Court noted that "The will which was the basis of the claim of the plaintiff, had not been found to be proved in accordance to law." The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "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." The Supreme Court found that the High Court relied solely on two sale deeds and a mortgage deed which related to other parcels, and failed to consider key documentary and oral evidence accepted by the lower courts.

Background The dispute arose from a suit (OS No.200/2011) filed by plaintiffs claiming declaration and injunction over a parcel said to have descended by an alleged oral partition and a will dated 16.07.2003 executed by a predecessor. Plaintiffs contended the property fell into the share of Arunachalam and, after his death, vested in plaintiff No.1 and plaintiff No.2 (an adopted son). Defendants denied any oral partition, disputed the status of the second plaintiff as adopted son, and pleaded that the relevant survey number had multiple co-owners who were not impleaded.

The Trial Court framed issues on declaration, injunction, execution of the will, legal heirship, non-joinder and other reliefs. After witnesses and documents were led, the Trial Court held that the will was not proved under Section 68 of the Evidence Act and Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, that the suit was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, and that plaintiffs failed to establish oral partition or title; the suit was dismissed on 08.09.2015. The First Appellate Court affirmed those findings and dismissed the appeal.

Before the High Court, the plaintiffs’ second appeal succeeded: the High Court accepted certain documents (a mortgage deed and two sale deeds) that mentioned boundaries and held oral partition was proved, set aside the lower courts’ concurrent findings, and decreed the suit. The defendants appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court examined the record and concluded that the deeds relied upon by the High Court pertained to different properties and did not prove partition of the survey number in dispute; the will was not proved; pattas showed joint ownership without partition; and the High Court ignored material evidence and misapplied Section 100 CPC. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment, confirmed the Trial and First Appellate Courts’ orders, and dismissed the plaintiffs’ suit. There was no order as to costs.

Case Details: Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 37 of 2024 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.15541 of 2023); Misc. Application of 2025 (Diary No. 25726/2024)
Case Title: Rajendhiran v. Muthaianmmal @ Muthayee & Ors.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Not indicated in the judgment text
For the Respondent(s): Not indicated in the judgment text