CRP/4415/2026 of A. Rathnakumari (Died) 1. Jayalatha Vs A. Govinda Samy on 27 August 2026

COMMON ORDER

These revision petitions have been filed to set aside the final and fair order dated 06.10.2025 made in I.A.Nos.7 & 8 of 2021 in I.A.No.431 of 2018 in O.S.No.209 of 2004 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Coimbatore.

( Uploaded on: 08/09/2026 08:43:07 pm )

2. I have heard Mr.N.Krishnakumar, for M/s.Sarvabauman Associates, learned counsel for the revision petitioners in both the revision petitions and Mr.Harshavardhan, learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 in both the revision petitions.

3. These revisions arise out of a suit for partition. The preliminary decree declaring the share of the respondents 1 and 2 as 5/16th share each was put to execution by way of a final decree application in I.A.No.431 of 2018. Pending the said final decree application, taking advantage of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vinita Sharma’s case, the respondents 1 and 2 filed I.A.No.7 of 2022, seeking to amend the preliminary decree from 5/16 to 1/4th share.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners would point out that the 2nd respondent, A.Rajalakshmi, one of the daughters of Ayyasamy Thevar and Lakshmi Ammal, through whom all the parties claim right and share, are the parties to the release deed executed by one Kandasamy, releasing his 1/5th share in favour of the four siblings, namely Shanmugasundaram, A.Rajalakshmi (2nd respondent), A.Govindasamy (1st respondent) and A.Subramani (3rd respondent). It is therefore the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that when one of the siblings has released his share of 1/5th, the 2nd

( Uploaded on: 08/09/2026 08:43:07 pm )

respondent cannot claim any additional share over and above the share originally allotted in the preliminary decree, namely 5/16. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners further states that the 2nd respondent is only the sister of the four brothers and others had already released their entitlement in favour of the 1st respondent, brother Govinda Samy even in 2015 and therefore, once the said Rajalakshmi had released and relinquished all her interest, she is not entitled to take the benefit of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vinita Sharma’s case and seek for additional share. This ground of attack is citing the principles of res judicata and estoppel. The claim of the 2nd respondent is also challenged on the ground that the said Rajalakshmi had filed similar application seeking a preliminary decree to be granted in her favour, which came to be dismissed and therefore, when the said adverse order has become final, it is not open to the 2nd respondent to take out a fresh application for modification of the preliminary decree from 5/16th to 1/4th share.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 would state that the share that has been released in favour of the 1st respondent, Govindasamy was the individual share of Rajalakshmi. However, one of the brothers, Kandasamy had released his 1/5th share in favour of three brothers and the sister, namely Rajalakshmi, even in the year 1969. The suit filed by one of the sons, Shanmugasundaram for partition was dismissed. The first appeal challenging the dismissal of the suit for partition was also unsuccessful, since

( Uploaded on: 08/09/2026 08:43:07 pm )

the Trial Court, as well as the First Appellate Court upheld the Will, which was relied on by Rajalakshmi, the 2nd respondent herein. However, in second appeal, this Court reversed the concurrent findings disbelieving the Will and granting 5/16th share in favour of the 1st plaintiff and 1/16th share in favour of the 2nd plaintiff. It is thereafter that the respondents 1 and 2 took out I.A.No.7 of 2021 seeking to amend the preliminary decree from 5/16 to 1/4th.

6. It is the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners that once Rajalakshmi had given up all her right, title and interest in the subject property by way of executing a settlement deed in favour of her brother, Govindasamy, 1st respondent herein, in 2015, she is not entitled to seek for amendment of the preliminary decree.

7. It is needless to state that the said Rajalakshmi has no subsisting right or interest in the suit property to maintain the application. However, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2, even if Rajalakshmi may not be entitled to any share, Govindasamy’s share cannot be denied or disputed by the plaintiffs. Today, the judgment of the Second Appellate Court has become final and the Will set up by the Rajalakshmi has been disbelieved and Rajalakshmi’s interest has already been settled on one of her three brothers, namely Govindasamy, the 1st respondent. In such view of the matter, each of the brothers are entitled to 1/4th share, which cannot be disputed

( Uploaded on: 08/09/2026 08:43:07 pm )

and in view of the settlement deed executed by Rajalakshmi, which is not challenged by herself till date, her entitlement also gets absolved and included in the share of Govindasamy.

8. In the light of the above, the two brothers who are alive, namely Govindasamy is entitled to 1/4th share, being his separate entitlement and another 1/4th having obtained by way of settlement deed from Rajalakshmi and the remaining 1/4th shall be inherited by the plaintiffs, who are respondents 1 and 2 and consequently, they would be entitled to 1/8th share each. The other 1/4th share is the entitlement of the 3rd respondent.

9. In view of the above, I.A.No7.2021 seeking for amendment of the preliminary decree is allowed in the above terms, declaring the petitioners share as 1/8th each and the share of the 1st respondent to be 1/2 share and the share of the 3rd respondent be 1/4th. It shall be open to the parties to file necessary final decree application, if any, not filed till date, to have physical division of the suit property by metes and bounds. It is needless to state that the parties shall be entitled to issuance of a preliminary decree, subject to having already paid necessary Court fees. On payment being made hereinafter, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, before becoming entitled to seek for passing of a final decree.

( Uploaded on: 08/09/2026 08:43:07 pm )

10. With the above direction, the Civil Revision Petitions are disposed of. No costs. Connected Civil Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. 27.08.2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No ATA To The Principal Sub Court, Coimbatore.

( Uploaded on: 08/09/2026 08:43:07 pm )

P.B.BALAJI, J. ATA CRP No.4415 & 4417 of 2026 27.08.2026

( Uploaded on: 08/09/2026 08:43:07 pm )