VELLAPPA GOUNDER Vs. PALANIAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE second appeals have arisen from the decree and judgment of the Sub Court, sankari made in A. S. Nos. 1981 and 1980 of 1989 dated 16. 4. 90 confirming the judgment of the learned District Munsif, Tiruchengode made in O. S. Nos. 968 of 1981 and 982 of 1981 dated 26. 10. 88.

(2.) THE respondents in SA No. 1101 of 1990 filed a suit seeking a preliminary decree for partition of their 1"4th share to the first respondent and permanent injunction alleging that the first respondent is the sister of the second respondent that they had another brother by name palanisami Gounder who died six years ago leaving behind him his widow sellammal as the sole heir that the defendants 1 and 2 are brothers and the third defendant was the son of their brother deceased Palanisami Gounder that the fourth defendant was the son of the first defendant that the defendants 1 and 2 had another brother by name Kuppanna Gounder that the defendants 1 and 2 and their brothers constituted a joint family and were owning and enjoying different portions of the family properties without any partition by metes and bounds that the first respondent was married to Muthusamy Gounder, who also owned properties adjacent to the suit properties on the south that the first respondent purchased the 1"4th share of Kuppanna Gounder in the suit properties under a registered sale deed dated 24. 7. 61 from out of the Sridhana and separate funds that she got the sale deed in the name of her brother deceased palanisami Gounder, since she wanted to save the property from the creditors of her husband that the said fact was known to the second respondent also and in pursuance of the said sale deed, the first respondent was put in possession of the specific portions in the two small bits and she has been enjoying the same by cultivating seasonal crops that when the defendants 1 and 2 began to give trouble to the peaceful enjoyment of the first plaintiff/first respondent in respect of the suit property, a Panchayat was convened wherein they were advised to have an amicable partition that the defendants did not pay heed to the Panchayatars words that on 28. 2. 77 the defendants 2 and 4 came with a body of persons and cut the trees to the worth of Rs. 500 and under such circumstances the plaintiffs/respondents were constrained to file a suit for partition.

(3.) AS seen above, the respondents in S. A. No. 1101 of 1990 filed a suit for partition in O. S. No. 968 of 1981 on the file of the District munsif s Court alleging that the first respondent purchased 1"4th share of kuppanna Gounder in the suit property under a registered sale deed on 24. 7. 61 from out of her funds, but in the name of her brother Palani Gounder that in pursuance of the purchase she has been in possession and enjoyment of the same by cultivating the lands and that since no amicable arrangement for partition was possible, she was constrained to file the suit for partition. The respondent in the other appeal S. A. No. 1102 of 1990 filed a suit for declaration and possession of the suit property contending that the Kuppanna Gounder sold the suit house and the 1"4th undivided share in the agricultural lands and other properties in her favour on 27. 7. 61 that the properties were purchased by her in the name of her brother Palani Gounder that her brother Palani gounder left behind him his wife, Sellammal who executed a registered settlement deed in favour of the respondent that the second defendant trespassed into the suit house and allowed the first defendant to be in possession and hence she was to file the suit for declaration and possession. Both the suits were vehemently contested by the respective contesting defendant alleging that the first respondent never purchased the 1"4th share either out of her funds or benami that she has not been in possession and enjoyment of the property and that she was not entitled for the reliefs.