Madras HC: Krishnamoorthi's Appeal for Land Re-Division Dismissed

Summary: Recently, the High Court in Madras agreed with an earlier decision about a land argument between M. Krishnamoorthi and K. Thangaraju. The court confirmed that the land had already been split between them and rejected M. Krishnamoorthi's request for another division.

Background of the Case

The argument was about a piece of land in Namakkal District, Tiruchengode Taluk, measuring about 11.94 acres. Originally, this land belonged to three brothers, including the grandfathers of both M. Krishnamoorthi and K. Thangaraju. Over time, it was claimed that the land was divided among the family members.

Krishnamoorthi's Claims

M. Krishnamoorthi started a legal case in 2013 asking for a 1/3rd share of the property, claiming it was still shared by everyone without a proper division. He argued that K. Thangaraju was getting in the way of him using the land peacefully and wanted a court order to stop him.

"M. Krishnamoorthi says that about a year before the case, K. Thangaraju began interfering and stopping him from enjoying the land peacefully."

Thangaraju's Defense

K. Thangaraju argued that a verbal agreement to divide the land had already happened in 1997, where the land was split, and each person took their own part. He showed proof of different houses, electricity connections, and borewells to demonstrate the division.

"K. Thangaraju pointed to things like different houses, separate electricity connections, and separate borewells..."

Court's Analysis and Decision

The court, led by Dr. Justice A.D. Maria Clete, looked at the evidence, including drawings and statements, which backed up the claim that the land had been divided before. M. Krishnamoorthi's statements during questioning made his case weaker.

"These statements clearly show that the land was used separately for a long time."

Final Judgment

On January 23, 2026, the court confirmed the earlier decision from September 5, 2017, rejecting M. Krishnamoorthi's appeal. The court found that the land had been divided, and each person was using their own part.

"The decision and order from 05.09.2017... are confirmed. The appeal is dismissed with costs."

This decision shows how important clear evidence is in land arguments and how long-term use and enjoyment of land can affect who owns it.