SUBRAMONIAN Vs. RADHAKRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is filed by defendants 1 to 6 in a suit for partition. According to the plaintiffs, the plaint schedule properties and other items originally belonged to Madan. After his death, the property is inherited by his children Krishnan, Padmanabhan, Pappi Pillai and Parvathi. They partitioned the properties and the plaint schedule properties were allotted to the share of Padmanabhan. According to the plaintiffs, since Padmanabhan obtained the property from his father, they are coparcenery properties. Sixth plaintiff, Sarojini, Devaki and 1st defendant are the children of Padmanabhan. Plaintiffs 1 to 5 are the children of Devaki and plaintiffs 7 to 10 are the children of Sarojini. Defendants 2 to 5 are the children of 1st defendant. According to the plaintiffs, as the plaint schedule properties are joint family properties of plaintiffs and defendants, they are entitled to equal shares by birth as the suit was filed for partition. The plaintiffs claimed 10/16 shares.

(2.) Defendants 1 to 6 filed a joint written statement contending that Padmanabhan executed a settlement deed in 1960 in favour of the 1st defendant in respect of the plaint schedule properties and he has become the absolute owner of the properties. He sold 15 cents from plaint schedule item No.2 to one Eapen. He also sold other items in plaint schedule item No.5 to Yohannan Daniel and Daniel Johnson. With regard to item No.6, it is stated that the 1st defendant did not get any right over the same as per the settlement deed. The 1st defendant also sold 12 cents in item No.8 to one Zachariah, who transferred the same to one Raveendran Nair. One Ayyan Thankan has got kudikidappu right over item No.9. Defendants 2 to 6 are also in possession of portions of properties as per settlement deed executed by the 1st defendant. They also contended that the plaint schedule properties are not coparcenery properties. Padmanabhan died on 26.9.1963. Plaintiffs and defendants are not coowners. Plaintiffs 1 to 5 are residing in one building situated in Sy. No. 192 of Madathuvilakam Village. Their mother Devaki was a tenant of the building to whom 1st defendant let out the building on a monthly rent of Rs. 15/-. Fourth defendant is in exclusive possession of 30 1/4 cents in Sy No. 192 of Madathuvilakam Village.

(3.) In the Trial Court, the plaintiffs did not adduce any evidence. The 1st defendant himself was examined as DW. 1 and Ext.B1 was marked on the side of defendants 1 to 6.