Madras HC: A. Duraisamy's Family Land Agreement Deemed Unclear

Quick Summary: The High Court in Madras made a big decision on December 15, 2025. A family fight over land in Coimbatore ended with the court siding against A. Duraisamy, who wanted the court to enforce a family agreement. The court said the original deal was not clear and had been changed over time.

The Case Background

This case started with a family disagreement. A. Duraisamy, the person who appealed, and his family were in a dispute over some property in Coimbatore. The original agreement, made on August 11, 1994, involved three pieces of land. The family tried to settle things before their father, V. Anganna Gounder, remarried.

The Properties in Question

• Item 1: Land on Avinashi Road, Chinniyampalayam. This was supposed to go to the sons after their father's lifetime.
• Item 2: Agricultural land in Kalapatty Village. A sale document was expected.
• Item 3: Joint family property in Kalapatty Village. The father agreed to give up his share for Rs. 6,00,000.

The Dispute

Duraisamy claimed the Rs. 6,00,000 included payment for the second property. However, the courts found that this amount was only for the third property. The original deal was not followed, and the family made other arrangements.

Court’s Findings

• Court Ruling: The courts, including the one led by Dr. Justice A.D. Maria Clete, found that the agreement wasn't clear. They noted that the family didn't stick to the original terms. For example, instead of a settlement document for the first property, sale documents were made.
• Buyers During the Case: The court also decided not to remove two parties (respondents 8 and 9) from the case, even though they bought the property during the legal proceedings.

Important Dates

• Original Agreement Date: August 11, 1994
• Judgment Date: December 15, 2025

Summary of the Verdict

The court decided that the agreement was incomplete and had been changed over time. Duraisamy's appeal was dismissed, and the court found no reason to change the earlier decisions. This case highlights the importance of having clear agreements and sticking to the terms to avoid long legal battles.