In a detailed judgment delivered on October 7, 2025, the Supreme Court of India settled a long-standing property dispute within a Tamil Nadu family but left the door open for a fresh legal battle. The bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice K. Vinod Chandran allowed both sides to file a new suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession over the disputed land. The Court found that although a "Will" was indeed proved, the question of the father's ownership remained "under a cloud," preventing a final declaration of ownership.
Background
The case stemmed from a family feud between Rajammal and her brothers-Munuswamy and Govindarajan-over 1.74 acres of dry land. Rajammal claimed her father, Rangaswamy Naidu, had executed a Will in 1985 dividing the property equally between her and one brother. Munuswamy, however, insisted that the land was ancestral and had been divided earlier, in 1983, through a family arrangement.
Rajammal filed a suit seeking a simple injunction-to restrain her brother from selling or disturbing her possession of the property. The trial court upheld her claim, finding the Will valid and granting an injunction. But the appellate court reversed that order, terming the land as joint family property and dismissing her suit.
When the matter reached the Madras High Court in second appeal, it restored the trial court’s decree, finding that the property was indeed the father’s self-acquired one and the Will stood proved.
Court's Observations
Hearing the appeal filed by the legal heirs of Munuswamy, the Supreme Court took a nuanced view. It noted that while the Will had been satisfactorily proved through witnesses, Rajammal had not sought recovery of possession despite admitting that her brother was in control of the land.
"The ill-drafted plaint and the clear admissions made in the witness box ought to have restricted the trial court and the High Court from granting an injunction," Justice Chandran observed while reading the judgment.
The Court also found that the plaintiff herself admitted that her brothers were occupying different portions of the land, and yet she did not seek a declaration of ownership or possession.
"While asserting a Will and title on its strength, there should have been a declaration of title sought," the bench remarked, explaining that an injunction alone could not be granted when possession was admittedly with the opposite party.
The bench further pointed out inconsistencies in the pleadings - such as confusion about adjoining properties and the extent of the plaintiff's share. These, it said, weakened her stand on possession and exclusive ownership.
At the same time, the Court noted that the defendants too had not filed any counter-claim seeking a declaration of their rights or a partition.
"In such circumstances, the injunction against alienation is perfectly in order," the Court held, ensuring that neither side could transfer or mortgage the disputed property.
Decision
Balancing both sides’ interests, the Supreme Court refrained from giving a final ruling on ownership. Instead, it allowed both parties to approach a civil court afresh within three months to seek a declaration of title and consequential possession.
"We reserve liberty to either of the parties to seek declaration of title and recovery of possession, if they desire," the judgment stated, emphasizing that any new proceedings would be decided independently, without being influenced by the findings of this case.
The Court also ordered that no alienation or encumbrance of the property shall take place until such proceedings are concluded.
With these directions, the appeal was disposed of, and all pending applications were closed.
Case Title: S. Santhana Lakshmi & Others vs. D. Rajammal
Case Number: Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 18943 of 2024