PARAMESWARI VELUCHAMY Vs. T R JAYARAMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants are plaintiffs in the suit in c. S. No. 1685 of 1994 which suit was filed by them, each one of the three plaintiffs claiming 1/11th share in the self acquired properties of their father late Ramasamy Naicker who died in the age of 73 in August, 1973, as also in the properties acquired by his sons subsequent to the death of their father. Defendants are four of their brothers, the son of the deceased brother and three sisters who had been married prior to the death of their father. THE marriage of the three plaintiffs took place in the year 1974 after the demise of their father. THE plaintiffs have in their plaint contended that their father was not possessed of any ancestral property and the partition that had been entered into among the father and his five sons under a registered partition deed dated 2. 9. 1958 was only sham and was meant to get over the Land Ceiling Legislation. THEy have also contended that gift made to them by their father under gift deed dated 14. 1. 1970 at a time when they were minors had not been accepted by them after they attained majority. It is also their further case that the Will of their father dated 18. 2. 1973 cannot be genuine, as according to them, their father was ill and would not have excluded the daughters from the disposition of the property.

(2.) ALL the defendants in the suit as also two of the three plaintiffs reside outside the jurisdiction of this Court. Leave was therefore sought to institute the suit in this Court against those defendants.

(3.) MR. Ramakrishnan, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned single Judge was in error in looking to the convenience of the parties while deciding the question of leave. It was submitted that the plaintiffs have questioned the validity of the partition deed of 2. 9. 1958 as also the genuineness of the Will of the father dated 18. 2. 1973 and three of the items in the plaint schedule are in Madras . Counsel contended that these facts are sufficient to sustain the leave which had been granted ex parte.