MATHIALAGAN Vs. P KANDASAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first defendant in O.S.No.278/92 on the file of the Sub Court, Namakkal, is the appellant in the appeal. The first respondent herein filed the suit for partition and separate possession of his share in various items of properties. He is the father of the appellant/first defendant. His wife is the second defendant in the suit/second respondent herein. The 4th defendant has 1/4th share in items 6 and 7, the 3rd defendant has 3/4th share in item 1 and the 4th and the 5th defendants claim 3/6th share in items 6 and 7.

(2.) The case of the plaintiff is as follows: The first defendant is the son of the plaintiff. The second defendant is his wife. He had another son by name Shanmugam and he died in an accident. Except for suit item 2, the other items were purchased for family benefit and are being enjoyed as joint family properties. Since the first defendant along with the second defendant tried to create threat of his life, the plaintiff had to leave the place. The second defendant had joined hands with the first defendant and denying the plaintiff's rights and had created documents, she had therefore been made a party in the suit. The plaintiff asked for his share of the property on 15-8-1990 and since the first defendant refused and attempted to beat him and kill him, the plaintiff went away and stayed with his relatives in Kalathur. The tractor purchased by the plaintiff and in his enjoyment TCM-5067 was forcibly removed by the first defendant and others after beating up the plaintiff. There were complaints and the matter went up to this Court and in this Court, the first defendant claimed that there was a family arrangement on 15-4-1988, pursuant to which the plaintiff and the second defendant agreed to receive Rs.4000/- and 6 bags of paddy per year and to evidence the same, two receipts were shown in the Court and only pursuant to the family arrangement, the properties were in the possession of the first defendant. There was no such family arrangement. It was a collusive one being brought about by defendants 1 and 2. In these circumstances, the suit came to be filed.

(3.) Defendants 1 and 2 filed a written statement denying the ill treatment meted out to the plaintiff and the creation of documents and stating further that the plaintiff married a second time on 28-5-1990 and left the family, that the family arrangement was a true document and ever since the first defendant was in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties and that all the properties belonged to the first defendant absolutely.