THANTHONI NAICKER Vs. KUPPAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendant in O. S. No. 39 of 1965, on the file of the court of the District munsif, Ranipet, who succeeded in part before the trial Court but lost before the first appellate Court, is the appellant herein. The matter in second appeal lies within a very narrow compass. The suit properties admittedly belonged to one thiruvengada Naicker, brother of the appellant and the respondents herein. The respondents, who are five in number, instituted the suit for partition and separate possession of their five-sixths share in the suit properties. The contention of the appellant was that the respondents were not entitled to five-sixth share and that if at all they were entitled to only one half of the suit properties jointly, the other half belonging to the appellant. The learned District Judge who tried the suit accepted this case of the appellant, while the learned Subordinate Judge, Vellore, on appeal, rejected this case and directed that the respondents and the appellant will divide the properties equally, the respondents, five in number, together taking five-sixths shares and the appellant taking one-sixth share. For coming to this conclusion, he followed the decision in Arunachalathammal v. Ramachandra Pillai, It is the correctness of this conclusion of the learned subordinate Judge that is challenged before me in second appeal.

(2.) THE matter has to be decided having regard to the language of Section 11 of the hindu Succession Act, 1956, read with the schedule. Section 11 states :--"the property of an intestate shall be divided between the heirs specified in any one entry in class II of the schedule so that they share equally. " class II of the schedule contains several entries, such as-

(3.) THE second appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. No leave.