YASODAIALIASPOONGAVANAM Vs. KANNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) YASODAI alias Poongavanan, the plaintiff is the appellant herein. She filed a suit for partition of her half share in "D" schedule property and for recovery of possession in respect of "B" schedule property contending that she would be entitled to half share in "D" schedule property along with 7th defendant, her brother, after the death of her father and mother and she would be entitled to the entire "B" schedule property, as the said property was settled in her favour by virtue of the settlement deed executed by her parents.

(2.) THE suit was contested by the defendants 2 to 6 contending that the entire properties, namely, "B" and "D" schedule properties were purchased by their father, the first defendant, from the 7th defendant, the brother of the plaintiff, in the year 1970 and as such, they would be entitled to claim adverse possession and therefore, the plaintiff would not be entitled to any relief.

(3.) IN order to substantiate the said plea, the learned counsel for the appellant would cite the following decisions: (1) Baijnath v. Jaimangal A.I.R. 1937 Pat. 56; (2) P.Lakshmi Reddy v. L.Lakshmi Reddy P.Lakshmi Reddy v. L.Lakshmi Reddy P.Lakshmi Reddy v. L.Lakshmi Reddy A.I.R. 1957 S.C. 314; (3) Narayanamma v. Thabitinaidu A.I.R. 1964 Ori. 212; (4) Balwant Singh v. Mehar Singh A.I.R. 1974 P.& H. 130; (5) Jurmati v. Anwar Rasul A.I.R. 1973 Gau. 90; (6) Mohd. Zainulabudeen v. Sayed Ahmed Mohideen (1990)1 S.C.C. 345; (7) Vidya Devi v. Prem Prakash (1995)4 S.C.C. 496; (8) M.Arthur Paul Ratna Raju v. Gudese Garaline Augusta Bhushanabai M.Arthur Paul Ratna Raju v. Gudese Garaline Augusta Bhushanabai M.Arthur Paul Ratna Raju v. Gudese Garaline Augusta Bhushanabai (1998)7 S.C.C. 103; (9) Ishwar Dass Jain v. Sohan Lal (2000)1 S.C.C. 434; (10) Lakshmiammal v. C.P.Nanjappan Lakshmiammal v. C.P.Nanjappan Lakshmiammal v. C.P.Nanjappan (2000)3 C.T.C. 29; (11) Kannappan v. Pargunan (2000)2 C.T.C. 219.