NALLIAPPAN Vs. S SUBRAMANIAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE third defendant is the appellant.

(2.) THE first respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for division of suit properties into four equal shares and allot one share to him. THE case of the first respondent was that the plaintiff and the defendants are co-owners of the suit properties and the plaintiff/first respondent is entitled to " share and defendants 1 and 2 viz., respondents 2 and 3 are entitled to " share and the appellant/third defendant is entitled to the remaining half share in the suit properties and the suit properties are in joint possession and enjoyment of the parties and only for convenient enjoyment and cultivation, the suit properties have been divided into number of fields and parties are cultivating their portions separately and the defendants are enjoying their extent disproportionate to their actual shares and therefore, the plaintiff demanded partition and the same was refused and hence, the suit was filed for partition.

(3.) THE first appellate court reversed the findings of the Trial Court and held that there was no partition between the parties as alleged by the appellant/third defendant and in the document of the year 1965 and the additional evidence filed in the first appeal viz., Exs.A5 and A6 dated 14.2.1939 and 4.7.1940, it was only stated that the undivided " share was conveyed and therefore, there was no partition between the families and they were in joint enjoyment and only for convenient purpose, each party was allowed to enjoy specific portion and that will not amount to actual division and allowed the appeal and decreed the suit. Hence, the second appeal.