KASTHURIBAI @ KASTHURI Vs. NATARAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The First Appeal has been directed against the impugned judgment and decree dated 06.02.2015 passed in O.S.No.50/2009 by the learned III Additional District Judge, Puducherry, dismissing the suit for partition instituted by the 1st plaintiff/appellant herein and one Mrs.Abirgami @ Jayalakshmi/2nd plaintiff.

(2.) The case of the plaintiffs is that the plaintiffs 1 and 2 are daughters of one late Rajamanickam and sisters of the defendants 1 and 2 and after the demise of their father Rajamanickam on 23.03.1983 at Puducherry, who left behind the plaintiffs and the defendants and their mother as his only legal heirs, filed a suit in O.S.No.50/2009 on the file of the learned III Additional District Judge, Puducherry in the year 2009 seeking a decree for partition for division of suit schedule properties by metes and bounds and for allotting 2/5th share to the plaintiffs and for appointment of Advocate Commissioner for effecting partition in terms of the preliminary decree and also for deciding the mesne profit payable by the defendants 1 and 2 for the period from 1984 till the date of decree with a consequential direction, directing the defendants 1 and 2 to pay 2/5th of the share to them. The further case of the plaintiffs is that after the demise of their father, late Rajamanickam, who is the owner of the suit schedule properties, since the ownership of the suit schedule properties devolved upon the plaintiffs, that the defendants 1 and 2 being male members of the family are looking after the said properties, that in spite of repeated requests made to them insisting upon the need for partition in respect of the suit schedule properties even after the demise of their mother Chakkubai on 03.02.1997 and that finding no response to the Lawyer's Notice dated 16.09.2008 issued to the defendants 1 and 2, demanding partition of the schedule mentioned properties, they laid the claim for passing a decree for partition as mentioned therein.

(3.) Opposing the maintainability of the suit for partition, the defendants 1 and 2 filed a joint written statement whereas the 3rd defendant Lakshmi, who is the sister of the plaintiffs 1 and 2 and the defendants 1 and 2, also filed a detailed written statement clearly supporting the prayer for partition laid by the plaintiffs 1 and 2.