PAPPAYAMMAL vs PALANISWAMY

The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts regarding the ownership of the suit properties, affirming that the properties were self-acquired by Kuppanna Gounder and that the second respondent, Sellammal, had established her title through adverse possession. The court ruled that the appellant's claim for partition was not valid as the properties were not included in the earlier family partition and were given to Sellammal for maintenance. The application for additional evidence was also dismissed, reinforcing the findings of the lower courts under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure.