NALLATHAMBI KOUNDCR Vs. GOPALAKRISHNA KOUNDCR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A.S.No.502 of 1980 is against O.S.No.17m8 of 1978 on the file of Sub Tindivanam and Tr.A.S.No.582 of 1984 is against O.S.No.176 of 1978 on the file of the Court, Tindivanam. Plaintiff in both the suits is same, though the suit properties in the suits are different Both the suits having been dismissed, the plaintiff has preferred respective appeals.

(2.) O.S.No.176 of 1978 is for setting aside the alienations of the suit properties (7 items land) made in favour of defendants 2 to 7 therein by the first defendant therein, who father of the plaintiff, and for partition and separate possession of the plaintiffs " the said suit properties and for past and future profits. According to the plaint, the properties are in the possession of the said alienees, as follows: Item No.1 with defendant, item No.2 with the 4th defendant; item No.3 with the 2nd defendant, item Nos.4 and 5 with the 5th defendant, item No.6 with the 6th defendant and item with the 7th defendant. Further, according to the plaint, the plaintiff was a minor at the of the said alienations he having been born on 18.5.1956. Bin he was also eo nomine to the alienations, he has prayed for setting aside the said alienations. The alienations attacked on the ground that the father was leading an immoral life and alienated properties for his immoral purposes. The plaintiff's further case is that the suit properties joint family properties of the family consisting of the plaintiff and his father.

(3.) O.S.No.178 of 1978 is for a declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to items 1 to 4 suit properties therein, (which consists of another 6 items of lands) for possession same and for partition of 1/2 share in the remaining items 3 and 6 therein, after aside the alienations of all the said suit properties in favour of the defendants therein, for past profits of Rs l,500and future profits. According to the plaint, the said suit 6 properties were settled on 18.8.1965 in favour of the plaintiff by his above said father 11th defendant in this suit (and 1st defendant in O.S.No.176 of 1978) and under settlement, the father should enjoy the said properties as the guardian of the minor till he attains majority and thereafter, the settlee should take possession and enjoy property without power of alienation during the life time of the settlor and on settlor he should take them absolutely. However, according to the plaint the said father wrongfully alienated items 1 to 4 and portions of items 5 and 6. Item 15 cents in item 2 and alienated in favour of the first defendant in the suit and his brother Subramanya The 2nd defendant is said to be the heir of the said Subramaniya Kounder. The said also alienated the remaining portion of item 2 in favour of 3rd defendant, item 3 defendant, portion of item 5 to 5th defendant and item 6 and another portion of item 6th defendant. The said alienations were by the said father as the guardian of his minor the plaintiff. These alienations are attacked in the suit on the ground that they were necessity and they were not supported by consideration 7th defendant is the paternal grandfather's brother's wife and defendants 8,9 and 10 are her daughters. It clear why D-7 to D-10 have been impleaded.