VIJAYALAKSHMI Vs. KANNIAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Appeal Suit is directed against the judgment and decree dated 27.10.1987 made in O.S.No. 62 of 1985 by the Court of III Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore

(2.) The appellants herein are the plaintiffs before the trial court and they filed the suit for partition and separate possession of 3/10 shares in the suit properties and for future mesne profits at the rate of Rs.50,000/- per annum; that according to the plaintiffs, themselves and defendants 5 to 7 are the daughters and defendants 2 to 4 are the sons of one Rangasamy Nadar and the 1st defendant is his widow; that the said Rangasamy Nadar who acquired the suit properties and other properties out of his earnings in cocoanut business died intestate on 19.11.1975; that as per Hindu Succession Act, the properties devolve upon the plaintiffs and defendants and the defendants 1 to 4 are managing the properties after the death of Rangasamy Nadar; that they have colluded together and are denying partition; that to defraud the share of the plaintiffs, they are creating false documents, tampering and fabricating the joint family documents and are not showing the accounts for the expenditure and income; that the said Rangasamy Nadar was cultivating the lands belonging to Karivaratharaja Perumal temple to an extent of 7.50 acres as a cultivating tenant; that he left his self acquired jewels of about 150 sovereigns, 50 cattles like cows and buffalows, steel and silver vessels worth about Rs.25,000/- and other movables; that the plaintiffs are not willing for the joint ownership on account of the attitude of the defendants; that the plaintiffs approached the defendants in the last week of December 1984 for partition but the defendants denied it; that the attempts made by the plaintiffs through the representation and through mediators for amicable partition are in vain. Hence the suit.

(3.) The 4th defendant would file a written statement adopted by the defendants 1 to 3,5 and 6 contending that items 6 and 7 of the suit properties were managed by the 2nd defendant under a deed of endowment conferring right; that when Rangasamy Nadar was unmarried, his father Karuppana Nadar gave two items of properties as gift and they are incorrectly described in items 4 and 5 of the plaint as ancestral in character; that the correct Survey Number is not 114/2 but is 113/3, measuring 2.03 ˝ acres; that items 1 to 3 were purchased by Rangasamy Nadar and the properties have been treated as joint family properties; that during the life time of Rangasamy Nadar, all the daughters except one were married; that the 3rd plaintiff and her husband took away the family car bearing Registration No.M.D.E.6130 and sold it for nearly Rs.20,000/- that after the death of Rangasamy Nadar, a family arrangement was made by all the sons, daughters and their mother, before relations to provide the usual household necessities such as coconuts, rice and jaggery to the plaintiffs and other sisters, but the said arrangement was not reduced in writing; that because of this concluded family arrangment, the plaintiffs did not take any action for several years; that without proof the plaintiffs have filed the suit vexatiously; that since the properties are ancestral one, the plaintiffs can claim a share if any, only in the share of late Rangasamy nadar; that the suit will be barred by Order II Rule 2 C.P.C; that there was no demand for partition and mediation; that the plaintiffs are not entitled to any mesne profits or accounting because of the concluded family arrangement; that the plaintiffs have no cause of action; that there is no merit in the suit and the same is to be dismissed.