CHINNAMMAL Vs. KALIAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Appellants/Plaintiffs have filed the present Second Appeal as against the Judgment and Decree passed by the Learned District Judge, Chengalpattu dated 07.02.1990 in A.S.No.71 of 1989 in confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 23.06.1988 in O.S.No.2 of 1985 on the file of the Learned Sub Judge, Poonamallee.

(2.) THE First Appellate Court viz., the Learned District Judge, Chengalpattu, while passing the Judgment in A.S.No.71 of 1989 on 07.02.1990, has, among other things, observed that this suit has been filed in the year 1984 and hence, only if the Plaintiffs prove that Chinnammal died without dividing the suit property, they cannot claim 1/4th share in the suit property and from the documents filed on behalf of the Plaintiffs, it is not established that Chinnammal has died without dividing the property/partitioning the property and further that the contesting Defendants have established that Chinnammal has divided the suit property to her two sons Kengu Naicker and Kanniappa Naicker and also that they have been in enjoyment of the same and subsequently, the Defendants who contested have established that they have changed the patta in their name to show their enjoyment of the suit property and therefore, the Plaintiffs cannot claim 1/4th share in the suit property. Even if the Plaintiffs have any right in the suit property, the Defendants have been in enjoyment of the suit property based on their claim and this fact is known to the Plaintiffs, the relief prayed for by the Plaintiffs is barred by limitation and that the Learned Sub Judge, Ponnamallee has taken into consideration all aspects of the case and has rendered a finding that the Plaintiffs cannot claim 1/4th share in the suit property, which is a correct and valid one and there is no error in it and resultantly, dismissed the Appeal with costs.'

(3.) THE Plaint Facts: