SUBRAMANI Vs. M CHANDRALEKHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by grant of leave has been filed by the defendants-appellants against the judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Second Appeal No. 11 of 1991. High Court by the impugned judgment has set aside the judgments and decree passed by the Courts below and has decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent herein.

(2.) Facts relevant to resolve the controversy in this appeal are :- Perianna Gounder (who died during the pendency of the suit) had three sons, namely, Late Natessa Muthu @ Perianna Gounder, Subramani (appellant No. 1) and Kandasamy. Pongiammal and Rajeswari (minor) appellants 2 and 3 are the wife and daughter of Late Natessa Muthu. Plaintiff-respondent M. Chandralekha is the wife of Kandasamy.

(3.) According to the plaintiff-respondent (hereafter referred to as the "respondent") there was a partition in the family in the year 1968 between the father and his three sons. In that Perianna Gounder was allotted A schedule property while his three sons were allotted B schedule property. Subramani and Kandasamy in the year 1980 purchased C schedule property. Thereafter, in the year 1983 Perianna Gounder settled A schedule property in favour of Subramani and Kandasamy. D schedule property which is an agricultural land was purchased again by the two brothers Subramani and Kandasamy.