GOTHAIAMMAL Vs. DHANALAKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Second Appeal has been filed, against the judgement and decree, dated,18.02.2016, passed in AS.No.23 of 2010, by the Principal District Court, Virudhunagar at Srivilliputhur, reversing the judgement and decree, dated, 05.07.2010, passed in OS.No.113 of 2006, by the Sub Court, Srivilliputhur.

(2.) The case of the Plaintiffs, in a nutshell, as set out, in the plaint is as follows:-

(3.) The case of the 8th Defendant, as set out in his written statement, is that the facts that the suit properties were purchased in the name of their mother, Packiathammal, under two sale deeds, dated 28.2.1958 and 13.12.1959. The father of the Plaintiffs died on 1.11.1956, and Packiathammal died in 1991 are admitted. However, the fact that from the date of demise of their father i.e. 1.11.1956 and till the date of their mother in 1991, the suit properties were in joint possession of the Plaintiffs and the Defendants is false. The marriage of the Plaintiffs were performed from and out of the income derived from the joint family properties. Even for purchase some other properties, the mother of the Plaintiffs had given amount from the income of the joint family properties and apart from that, the Plaintiffs were given gold ornaments to the tune of 70 sovereigns of gold and silver articles. Even during the life time of their mother, the Plaintiffs themselves agreed to partition the suit properties in equal shares among the brothers and hence, they have no claim over the same. The Plaintiffs have also admitted that the properties acquired through partition in the earlier suit shall be partitioned between the husband of the 1st Defendant and the 8th Defendant. Though it is alleged by the Plaintiffs that to the legal notice issued by the Plaintiffs, the 8 th Defendant sent a reply dated, 16.10.2003, the contents of the was reply notice was not made as per the instructions of the 8th Defendant. In such circumstances, the suit is liable to be dismissed.