JANAKIAMMAL Vs. PUSHPA LEELAVATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendants 1 to 3 in O.S. No.103 of 1980 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Tirupathur, are the appellants herein.

(2.) The first respondent as plaintiff filed the said suit, praying the Court to pass a decree, (a) directing partition of plaint 'A' Schedule properties into 12 equal shares with reference to good and bad soil and put the plaintiff in separate possession of one such share; (b) directing partition of plaint 'B' and 'C' schedule properties into 4 equal shares and put the plaintiff in separate possession of one such share, and for other reliefs.

(3.) Briefly it is the case of the plaintiff that her father Soundararajan died intestate leaving his wife viz., the mother of the plaintiff, plaintiff and defendants 2 to 3, his sons as legal heirs. Out of the properties left by him, 'A' schedule are the ancestral immovable properties; 'B' schedule are his self-acquired immovable properties and 'C' schedule are his movable self-acquired properties. According to her, all the properties are in management of defendants-1 to 3 and they are liable to render accounts of the income derived from the said properties. The plaintiff claims to be in joint possession of the properties along with defendants-1 to 3 as co-owner and hence, she is entitled for partition and separate possession of her share ie., 1/4th share in the self-acquired properties described in B and C schedules and 1/12th share in ancestral properties viz., 'A' schedule. It is the case of the plaintiff that her request to divide the properties has not yielded any result and that in fact, she was forced to issue a lawyer's notice on 1.8.1979, calling upon defendants-1 to 3 to have partition effected. But however, the defendants sent a reply dated 29.08.1979, containing several allegations which are not true. The plaintiff sent a rejoinder notice dated 26.11.1979 to the counsel for defendants-1 to 3. Defendants 4 and 5 are impleaded as they have lent monies on mortgages in respect of the immovable properties and the 6th defendant is impleaded as he has given a loan on hypothecation of the Printing Press known as Sri Venkateswara Printing Press founded by the father of the plaintiff from and out of his self-acquired funds. The plaintiff refuted the claim made in the reply notice that Sri Venkateswara Printing Press is the self-acquired property of defendants-2 and 3. The suit for partition has been laid by the plaintiff, claiming 1/12th share in 'A' schedule properties and 1/4th share in plaint 'B' and 'C' schedule properties.