KRISHNAN Vs. RATNAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiffs are the appellants. They filed the suit for partition and recovery of possession of 3/5 shares in the plaint schedule property. The Trial Court passed a preliminary decree for partition holding that plaintiffs are entitled to 3/15 shares jointly. This has been confirmed by the District Judge in A. S.61 of 1979.

(2.) The three plaintiffs and the 2nd defendant are the sons of the 1st defendant. They are members of an undivided Hindu family. The suit property originally belonged to Anantharama Pattar. After his death, Krishna Pattar, Rama Pattar and Harihara Pattar partitioned the property in 1937 and the suit property was set apart to Krishna Pattar. Krishna Pattar bad three sons, namely Anantharama Iyer, Subramania Iyer and the 1st defendant. It is the case of the plaintiffs that while Anantharama Iyer, Subramania Iyer and Ist defendant were enjoying the property as joint family property, Anatharama Iyer relinquished his right in the property to Subramania Iyer as per Exhibit B3 document) that in 1965 Subramania Iyer gifted his rights in the property to the branch of the Ist defendant, that Ist defendant was in management of the property, that the plaintiffs were residing in different places in connection with their employment, that the 3rd defendant prevailed upon the 1st defendant and obtained sale deed in respect of the entire property from him, that the assignment deed in favour of the 3rd defendant is not binding on the plaintiffs or the 2nd defendant and that the plaintiffs are entitled to partition of their 3/5 shares with damages and mesne profits from the date of the suit.

(3.) Defendants 1 and 2 remained ex parte. 3rd defendant resisted the suit contending that plaintiffs and defendants 1 and 2 have filed the suit conclusively, that he purchased the property for valuable consideration from the 1st defendant, that the sale was for the benefit of the 1st defendant and his heirs, that at any rate only 1/3 share in the property which belonged to the Ist defendant alone could be partitioned and that the 2/3 shares which be obtained as per Exhibits B3 and 84 cannot be claimed by the plaintiffs.