ARPUTHAMMAL Vs. GOVINDAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendants 2, 3 and 4 are the appellants herein. THE first respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for partition of her half share in the suit property.

(2.) THE case of the first respondent/plaintiff was that her father by name Mahadeva Gounder, and his brother by name Parthasarathy Gounder, owned the suit property in common and were in enjoyment of the same, without partitioning it. THE first respondent/plaintiff is the only legal heir of Mahadeva Gounder and the other sharer viz., the Parthasarathy Gounder, died leaving behind the defendants 1 and 2 and also one son by name Subramani Gounder, whose legal heirs are the defendants 3 and 4. Evenafter the death of the plaintiff's father-Mahadeva Gounder, the plaintiff and the defendants 3 and 4, were in enjoyment of the suit property in common and the plaintiff was given her share from the income in the suit properties. Recently, the plaintiff came to know that the defendants are taking steps to sell the property to the third party and when questioned, the defendants claimed exclusive right over the suit property under the settlement deeds dated6.12.1968 and 21.5.1971, alleged to have been executed by Mahadeva Gounder, the father of the first respondent/plaintiff and the first respondent/plaintiff contended that those two settlement deeds are not valid and no right or title was passed under those two settlement deeds and the properties are enjoyed in common. THErefore, the first respondent/plaintiff is entitled to half share in the suit properties.

(3.) THE Trial Court held that Exs.B5 and B44, the two settlement deeds alleged to have been executed by Mahadeva Gounder in favour of Subramani Gounder, was not proved by the appellants and no title has been passed under those two settlement deeds in favor of Subramani Gounder Gounder. THErefore, the first respondent/plaintiff is entitled to claim her share in the properties covered under those two settlement deeds. THE Trial Court further accepted the case of the appellants that item Nos. 2, 3, 5 and 8 of the suit properties belonged to one Renu Goundar, and therefore, the first respondent/plaintiff is not entitled to claim any share in respect of those properties and decreed the suit only in respect of remaining items of properties, excluding item Nos.2, 3, 5 and 8. Aggrieved by the same, the first respondent/plaintiff filed an appeal in A.S.No.4 of 2001 and the appellants herein filed the appeal in A.S.No.3 of 2001, on the file of the Additional District Cum Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) Vellore, and both the appeals were heard together and a common judgment was passed wherein, the Lower Appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants herein and allowed the appeal filed by the first respondent/plaintiff. Hence, these two appeals are filed by the appellants.