His Lordships Hon’ble Mr. Justice P.B.BALAJI rendered an erudite detailed Judgment regarding estoppel against a party deriving benefit from a Partition deed from challenging the Partition deed on 30.04.2026.

[07/05, 16:38] sekarreporter1: http://youtube.com/post/Ugkxc6aFxh9kynhXbTGQpbXCFcYgQFHaKfz9?si=9J0GH2Gnuk7d9xod
[07/05, 16:38] sekarreporter1: His Lordships Hon’ble Mr. Justice P.B.BALAJI rendered an erudite detailed Judgment regarding estoppel against a party deriving benefit from a Partition deed from challenging the Partition deed on 30.04.2026.

The Hon’ble Madurai Bench of Madras High Court on 30.04.2026 in S.A.(MD).No.353 of 2017 [S.Paulraj (died) and others Vs. K.Subburaman] dismissed a Second Appeal holding the following principles of law:-

Advocate for Appellant : Mr.A.Sivaji
Advocate for Respondents 1 & 2 : Mr.M.Kannan

1. Party to a partition document cannot content that a Partition deed is not binding upon him and that a Partition deed did not reflect the correct measurement.

2. Admission given by a party in the witness box would constitute substantial piece of evidence and it would be binding on the party.

3. A party having admitted the execution of Partition deed and having derived benefit under the same is estopped from claiming otherwise and attack the measurements mentioned in the Partition deed.

4. A family arrangement even if unregistered would operate as a complete estoppel against a party who took advantage of the family arrangement.

5. The Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kale and others v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, reported in 1976-3-SCC-119 and also the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vathsala Manickavasagam v. N.Ganesan, reported in 2013-9-SCC-152 relied upon.

6. The Judgment of the Hon’ble High Court in Lakshmi Ammal and others Vs. S.Bakthavatsalu Naidu reported in 2026-2-MLJ-404 was distinguished.
[07/05, 16:39] sekarreporter1: [07/05, 16:38] sekarreporter1: http://youtube.com/post/Ugkxc6aFxh9kynhXbTGQpbXCFcYgQFHaKfz9?si=9J0GH2Gnuk7d9xod
[07/05, 16:38] sekarreporter1: His Lordships Hon’ble Mr. Justice P.B.BALAJI rendered an erudite detailed Judgment regarding estoppel against a party deriving benefit from a Partition deed from challenging the Partition deed on 30.04.2026.

The Hon’ble Madurai Bench of Madras High Court on 30.04.2026 in S.A.(MD).No.353 of 2017 [S.Paulraj (died) and others Vs. K.Subburaman] dismissed a Second Appeal holding the following principles of law:-

Advocate for Appellant : Mr.A.Sivaji
Advocate for Respondents 1 & 2 : Mr.M.Kannan

1. Party to a partition document cannot content that a Partition deed is not binding upon him and that a Partition deed did not reflect the correct measurement.

2. Admission given by a party in the witness box would constitute substantial piece of evidence and it would be binding on the party.

3. A party having admitted the execution of Partition deed and having derived benefit under the same is estopped from claiming otherwise and attack the measurements mentioned in the Partition deed.

4. A family arrangement even if unregistered would operate as a complete estoppel against a party who took advantage of the family arrangement.

5. The Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kale and others v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, reported in 1976-3-SCC-119 and also the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vathsala Manickavasagam v. N.Ganesan, reported in 2013-9-SCC-152 relied upon.

6. The Judgment of the Hon’ble High Court in Lakshmi Ammal and others Vs. S.Bakthavatsalu Naidu reported in 2026-2-MLJ-404 was distinguished.
[07/05, 16:42] sekarreporter1: [07/05, 16:38] sekarreporter1: http://youtube.com/post/Ugkxc6aFxh9kynhXbTGQpbXCFcYgQFHaKfz9?si=9J0GH2Gnuk7d9xod
[07/05, 16:38] sekarreporter1: His Lordships Hon’ble Mr. Justice P.B.BALAJI rendered an erudite detailed Judgment regarding estoppel against a party deriving benefit from a Partition deed from challenging the Partition deed on 30.04.2026.

The Hon’ble Madurai Bench of Madras High Court on 30.04.2026 in S.A.(MD).No.353 of 2017 [S.Paulraj (died) and others Vs. K.Subburaman] dismissed a Second Appeal holding the following principles of law:-

Advocate for Appellant : Mr.A.Sivaji
Advocate for Respondents 1 & 2 : Mr.M.Kannan

1. Party to a partition document cannot content that a Partition deed is not binding upon him and that a Partition deed did not reflect the correct measurement.

2. Admission given by a party in the witness box would constitute substantial piece of evidence and it would be binding on the party.

3. A party having admitted the execution of Partition deed and having derived benefit under the same is estopped from claiming otherwise and attack the measurements mentioned in the Partition deed.

4. A family arrangement even if unregistered would operate as a complete estoppel against a party who took advantage of the family arrangement.

5. The Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kale and others v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, reported in 1976-3-SCC-119 and also the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vathsala Manickavasagam v. N.Ganesan, reported in 2013-9-SCC-152 relied upon.

6. The Judgment of the Hon’ble High Court in Lakshmi Ammal and others Vs. S.Bakthavatsalu Naidu reported in 2026-2-MLJ-404 was distinguished.
[07/05, 16:42] sekarreporter1: http://youtube.com/post/UgkxEky7dAl6LTyb8Tmc-jSfBti2PJJJzUTY?si=vUzfoXsOZCrWojXK