LAKSHMI AMMAL Vs. MUTHU GOUNDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first appellant is the mother of the second appellant and the respondents. The first appellant died pending the Second Appeal and the second appellant has been recognised as her legal heir for the purpose of prosecuting the appeal.

(2.) The suit property belongs to one Raja Mudaliar. The first appellant purchased it from Raja Mudaliar from and out of her savings and her Stridana funds on 2-9-1947 under the registered sale deed Ex. A2. Ever since that date only the first appellant has been in enjoyment of the suit property. The first appellants husband died 15 years prior to the suit. The first respondent harassed the parents and in 1959 left the family. In 1960 he began troubling his parents for his share. Therefore, partition deed Ex. A3 dated 6-10-1960 was executed. At that time, the 2nd appellant and another brother paramasivam were minors. Though the suit property belonged to the first appellant alone, against her will she was made to include it in the partition deed and it was allotted to her and her husband under A-Schedule of Ex. A3. B, C and D Schedules were allotted to first respondent, the second appellant and other brother Paramasivam respectively. No one else had any right to the suit property except the appellant from the date of purchase. The appellant requested the Special Tahsildar, who came to survey the property to issue patta in the name of the second appellant. Therefore, the patta is in the name of the second appellant. No one else has any interest in the suit property and since the respondents interfered with their possession, the suit was filed.

(3.) The first respondent filed written statement denying the purchase of the suit property by the first appellant from her own funds. According to him, it was joint family property and it belonged to all the members of the joint family. He admitted that his father died 23 years ago and therefore his wife, three sons and two daughters are his legal heirs. The first respondent denied that he harassed the family and demanded division. According to him, the division was made by his father on his own accord. The plaint averment regarding the circumstances under which the suit property came to be included in the partition deed, were denied by the respondent. All the other averments were denied.