MUTHUSAMY GOUNDER Vs. JANAKIRAMAN INSANE PERSON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FOR the sake of convenience, I am adopting the rank of the parties as in the appeal. The appellant was the first defendant in the suit out of which the appeal has The first respondent was the plaintiff and respondents 2 and 3 were defendants 2.

(2.) THE suit relates to three Schedules of properties. A schedule comprises of two Schedule relates to certain houses and C. Schedule to certain lands. THE first respondent prayed for a declaration of his title over the A Schedule properties and for delivery possession of item No. 1 thereof and for injunction restraining the appellant from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of item No. 2 thereof. THE prayer with reference Schedule was for a division of the same into nine equal shares and for allotment shares to the first respondent. With reference to the C Schedule, the prayer was for and separate allotment of l/4th share. THEre was also a prayer for mesne profits reference to A Schedule and C Schedule properties. THE first respondent, the appellant the third respondent are brothers. THE first respondentwas described as an insane and the suit was instituted by his wife as next friend. THE case of the first respondent that the A Schedule properties were acquired by his father from out of the income exclusive properties belonging to the first respondent and he was managing the same guardian. According to. the first respondent, though the properties were purchased name of the father, they belonged exclusively to the first respondent and the father right to bequeath the same in favour of the appellant under his will dated 15. 12. 1983. reference to B Schedule properties, the first respondent claimed that he was entitled own right to l/3rd share as a member of the joint family and to another l/9th share death of the father, as according to him, the will dated 15. 12. 1983 should be completely ignored. With reference to C Schedule properties which were the exclusive properties father, the first respondent claimed that it devolved on all the four children on the father and thus, he was entitled to l/4th share.

(3.) THE third respondent filed a memo of cross-objections after a delay of 300 daysbut delay has been condoned by this court. In the memorandum of Cross-objections, grounds were directed only against the finding of the court below that the plaintiff was insane person.