K N VENKATESWARA RAJA Vs. THAYAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Plaintiffs are the Appellants. THE Suit was filed for partition. THE brief facts are as follows: One Muthusamy Raja was the common ancestor. He had six sons (1) Lakshmana Perumal Raja (2) Ramasamy Raja (3) Kandasamy Raja (4) Sanjivi Raja (5) Narayana Raja (6) Alagar Raja. THEy formed a Hindu Joint Family. Muthusamy Raja was running a Rice Mill under the name and style of "Meenakshi Rice Mill" by putting up superstructure in the land owned by one A.K.T. Trust at Rajapalayam. THE family business of rice mill was continued by the eldest Lakshmana Perumal Raja. THEreafter, Lakshmana Perumal Raja and Ramasamy Raja severed their relationship in the joint family and went away. THEreafter, the father Muthusamy Raja and his four sons were continuing the business. THE joint family purchased various items of properties in the name of the members of the joint family.

(2.) IN the year 1941 Sanjivi Raja and Narayana Raja also went away from the joint family and Kandasamy Raja was continuing the business. IN the year 1966, Alagar Raja also left the family and thereafter, Kandasamy Raja alone was continuing the business and out of the income of the business, and also out of the income from the joint family properties, the Suit properties were purchased both in the name of Kandasamy Raja, his wife and his sons. Kandasamy Raja had four sons viz., K.K. Sathyanarayana Raja, K.K. Ramasamy Raja, K.K. Arjuna Raja and K.K. Muthukrishnama Raja. He had four daughters viz., 1. Devaki Ammal, 2. Bagyalakshmi Ammal 3. Thavamani and 4. Lingammal. His wife is Thayammal. They are the respondents herein.

(3.) THE contesting Respondents denied all the allegations in the Plaint. THE relationship was admitted and the establishment of rice mill by Muthusamy Raja, the common ancestor was admitted. THE devolition of joint family and its properties till K.M. Kandasamy Raja was also admitted. However, purchase of various schedule mentioned properties out of the joint family income was stoutly denied in the various paragraphs of Written Statement. According to the Respondents, presently, the 1st Defendant, who is the mother of the Respondents 2 to 9, alone is entitled to some of the properties and the Respondents 3 and 4 alone is entitled to the I schedule of rice and oil mill. THE Respondents submitted that the 5th Respondent separated himself from the joint family even during the life time of Kandasamy Raja. THE specific case of the Respondents is that the "A" schedule rice mill is in exclusive, independent, possession and enjoyment of the Respondents 3 and 4. THE B schedule item No.1 is an independent property of the 1st Respondent. In the 2nd and 3rd item of the "B" schedule property, the 5th Respondent has already released his right. THE "C" schedule property and the 1st item of the "D" schedule property are the exclusive property of the 1st Respondent, wherein the 5th Respondent is an attestor of a Sale Deed. THE second item of "B" schedule is an exclusive property of the 4th Respondent and as far as schedule "E" is concerned, the 5th Respondent had already executed a Release Deed and the Respondents 3 and 4 are in possession and enjoyment. According to the Respondents, never the 5th Respondent nor the Appellants have any share or right over any of the suit properties.