KUTHALAKANNU AMMAL Vs. LAKSHMANA NADAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appeal against the judgment and decree made in A.S.No.71 of 1983, on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Tenkasi confirming the decree of dismissal made in O.S.No.33 of 1980, on the file of the District Munsif, Tenkasi dated 28-2-1983.

(2.) The unsuccessful plaintiffs in both the Courts below are the appellants in this Second Appeal.

(3.) The plaintiffs filed the suit praying for partition and separate possession of their half share in the suit property alleging that the suit property originally belonged to one Mahalinga Nadar, that Mahalinga Nadar died about 1940 leaving behind his wife Nallamuthu Ammal and two sons, Subramania Nadar and Madasamy Nadar, that they have been enjoying the properties, that on 5-4-1954 there was an oral partition between two sons and Mahalinga Nadar as per which the suit properties were allotted to their mother Nallamuthu Ammal for her maintenance, that Nallamuthu Ammal was given only right to enjoy the property during her lifetime that after her lifetime, the properties an to devolve upon among two sons equally that Madasamy died in 1960 leaving behind his wife, the first plaintiff, a daughter the second plaintiff as his legal heirs, that Subramania Nadar died in 1972 leaving behind the defendants 1 and 2 his sons and the third defendant his wife, that Nallamuthu Ammal was enjoying the properties during her lifetime, that she died in 1979, that therefore the plaintiffs and the defendants are each entitled to half share in the suit properties, that the plaintiffs have been demanding the defendants to divide the properties and allot their separate share, that a notice was issued by the plaintiffs for which a reply has been sent with false averments, that the defendants have claimed that the suit properties have been gifted in their favour by Nallamuthu Ammal under a deed dated 1-8-1968, that Nallamuthu Ammal had no right to execute the gift deed, that she had only right to enjoy the suit property till her lifetime, that therefore, the gift deed executed in favour of the defendants is not valid, that the gift deed did not come into effect, that the plaintiffs and the defendants continue to be in joint possession of the properties and that, therefore, the suit has been filed for partition and separate possession of the plaintiffs' half share.