R DURAISAMY Vs. RAMASAMY GOUNDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE parties are referred to here under according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial court.

(2.) A recapitulation and resume of facts which are absolutely necessary and germane for disposal of the second appeal wound run thus:- (a) The Plaintiff Duraisamy filed the suit in O.S. No. 84 of 2007 before the trial court seeking the following reliefs:-

(3.) THE first defendant Ramasamy Gounder is the father of the plaintiff and the defendants 2 and 3. Ramasamy Gounder purchased the third item of the property by virtue of a sale deed, Ex.A6 dated 07.09.1989. As evidenced, a partition effected between Ramasamy Gounder and his brothers under Ex.A1 dated 22.03.1991. Subsequently, in respect of some other items of the property, another partition deed under Ex.A2 dated 25.11.1998 emerged among the said co-parceners. THE fact remains that the said item No.3 of the suit property was not included in either of the partition deed since it was not a joint family property in the hands of Ramasamy Gounder, which is also not liable for partition among Ramasamy Gounder and his three sons, but both the Courts below committed an error in not granting the relief of partition in respect of item No.3 of the suit property.