Here's a rundown of a recent court decision from the High Court of Madras involving a family property dispute in Salem. The case was decided on November 24, 2025, by the Honourable Dr. Justice A.D. Maria Clete.
This case is all about a family fight over six properties in Salem. P. Sellappan, the person who brought the case to court, wanted to divide these properties, claiming his share. The properties were originally owned by R. Venkatachala Naicker, who had four sons. The properties were located in Attur Town and Salem District.
Initially, the trial court in Salem decided on December 11, 2009, that P. Sellappan was entitled to a 1/4th share of the properties, but one particular property (Item No.6) was left out of the division because it was sold to a buyer, the 12th person involved in the case, during the legal proceedings.
P. Sellappan wasn't happy with the trial court's decision, so he appealed. On April 22, 2013, the higher court changed the trial court's decision. They accepted a will that P. Sellappan showed as evidence, which increased his share to 3/10th in the first five properties and confirmed his 4/15th share in the sixth property.
"The higher court found the Will proved and consequently held that the plaintiff is entitled to 3/10th share in items 1 to 5." - Appellate Court Judgment
The 12th person involved in the case, who bought part of Item No.6 during the lawsuit, wasn't pleased. He argued that his purchase should be left out of the division. However, the court ruled that since he bought the property while the case was ongoing, his rights would be decided in the final decision.
The High Court, on November 24, 2025, dismissed the 12th person's appeal. The court said his purchase was under the rule of "lis pendens," meaning he bought the property at his own risk during the lawsuit.
"A lis pendens purchaser cannot insist that the property purchased by him must necessarily be allotted to the share of his vendors." - High Court Judgment
This case highlights the risks of buying property involved in legal disputes. The court's decision emphasizes that such purchases are made at the buyer's own risk, and their rights can only be settled during final decision proceedings.
