K. RAJARAM Vs. K. RAMAKRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal suit in A.S.No.189 of 2019 is filed against the judgment and decree dated 31.08.2018 passed in O.S.No.82 of 2013 and the appeal suit in A.S.No.143 of 2019 is filed against the judgment and decree dated 31.08.2018.

(2.) The plaintiff is the appellant in both the appeal suits and the defendants are the respondents. The appeal suit is filed against O.S.No.82 of 2013 and the trial Court passed a common judgment in respect of other suits filed in O.S.No.46 of 2012 and O.S.No.81 of 2013. As far as O.S.No.82 of 2013 is concerned, the facts in brief set out in the plaint are that the suit properties are belonged to the father of plaintiff namely Kullapillai. He was died in the year 1952, leaving behind two sons namely Kandasamy Pillai and Veerasamy Pillai. On 02.03.1996, both the brothers partitioned the properties under registered partition deed. The 1st defendant is elder son and the plaintiff is younger son of Kandasamy Pillai. The 2 nd defendant is wife of 1st defendant. The serial Nos.5 and 6 in item No.1 are purchased by mother Selvanayagi under sale deed dated 21.09.1964. Item Number II of the plaint schedule property was acquired by father Kandasamy Pillai under exchange deed dated 31.05.1967. Kandasamy pillai died in the year 1982 and Selvanayagi died on 22.06.2006. Both of them were executed a unregistered will with a condition to inherit the suit properties only to the male issues of Ramakrishnan and Rajaraman. The patta regarding the suit properties stands in the name of plaintiff. The 1st defendant has not opposed the sale. The plaintiff is illiterate. Taking advantage of this, the 1st defendant has taken away all the original documents including unregistered will executed by plaintiff's parents.

(3.) The 1st plaintiff had worked in the Revenue Department. Due to his influence and by virtue of influence, he changed a patta as joint patta. He sent complaint against the plaintiff in respect of poultry farm. The 1st defendant purchased a flat and constructed a house in the name of 3rd defendant at Chennai from the income of suit properties. The 1st and 2nd defendant having assaulted the plaintiff on several occasions. They are trying to sell the properties suppressing the unregistered will. The plaintiff constructed a house in item No.1 and on 18.08.2012, the defendants 1 and 2 came with their rowdy elements and tried to disposes the plaintiffs by saying that they are going to enter lease agreements for harvesting coconut trees. The defendants 1 and 2 said that they are making arrangements to sell the suit properties and informed the plaintiff that they may come again and again. On account of the fact that the situation became worsen and the defendant had not come forward to divide the suit properties as well as the item No.3 of the suit property purchased by the 1st defendant in favour of the 2nd defendant, the plaintiff instituted a suit claiming half share in all the suit properties. The plaintiff arranged a poultry farm in the item No.1 by entering contract with M/s.Charoen Pokhand (India) Private Limited and for that he spent three lakhs and more including for obtaining EB connection for rendering the business. Thus, the plaintiff is entitled to half share in all the suit schedule properties.