G KANTHIMATHI Vs. G LAKSHMI AMMAL ETC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A.S. No. 8 of 1983 is filed by the plaintiffs while A.S. No. 893 of 1985 is filed by the eighth defendant in O.S. No. 151 of 1980 sub court, Nagercoil, challenging the dismissal of the said suit holding that the plaintiffs are not the legal heirs of late Ganapathia Pillai and are not entitled to any relief. For the purpose of convenience, the rank of the parties before the trial court is adopted herein.

(2.) THE material facts which are relevant for the disposal of these appeals are as follows: THE plaintiffs (appellants in A.S. No. 8 of 1983), filed the suit for partition and separate possession alleging that plaintiffs 2 to 5 are the children of late Ganapathia Pillai through his third wife, the first plaintiff herein. Defendants 2 and 3 are the sons of the said Ganapathia Pillai, through his first wife, the first defendant and that defendants 4 to 8 are the children of Gnanapathia Pillai through his second wife Ponnammal. Ganapathia Pillai was having properties at Nagercoil, Tirunelveli and Shenkottah and he was also running bus transport and allied business under the name and style of Sri Ganapathia Motor Service. It is the further case of the plaintiffs that all the properties mentioned in A and B Schedules attached to the plaint are his separate and self-acquired properties. THE second wife of Ganapathia Pillai, namely, Ponnammal died in or about 1950 and a few months thereafter Ganapathia Pillai married the first plaintiff as his third wife at Nagercoil when it was part of Travan-core State where was no law prohibiting marriage, a third time. Ganapathia Pillai died at Nagercoil intestate on 5-10-1972 leaving behind the plaintiffs also as his legal heirs, and as per the Hindu Succession Act the first plaintiff and the first defendant together are entitled to 1/12th share whereas the other plaintiffs and other defendants are each entitled to 1/12th share in the suit properties. It is also stated that defendants 4, 5 and 7 are running nine lorries of the said business for the benefit of the members of the family and they are claiming the same as their own. It is further stated that the second defendant who has been managing the suit properties is bound to render account from 5-10-1972 to the plaintiffs while defent dants 4, 5 and 7 are liable to render accounin respect of the income from the lorries.

(3.) DEFENDANTS 9 and 10 adopt the written statement of defendants 2 and 3.