KANNA KONAR AND ORS Vs. KANNIAMMAL AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Second Appeal has been brought by the unsuccessful defendant No.3-Kanna Konar who last his case both before the learned trial Court and learned first appellate Court at the hands of his own sister s purchaser/plaintiff-Kasambu Konar.

(2.) (i) The plaintiff-Kasambu Konar being purchaser of the suit property from one Saroja-D7 by sale deed dated 14.12.1994-Ex.A2-75 cents of land filed a suit stating that the suit property originally belong to one Vediappa Konar, Son of Ramasamy Konar and the Vediappa Konar had given the said property to his daughter Chinnakannu Ammal as stridhanam under the deed dated 12.4.1946. The said Chinnakannu Ammal had been enjoying the property in S.No.146/1A, admeasuing 1.50 acres of land. The said Chinnakannu Ammal married one Parvatha Konar and they have also given birth to two daughters and four sons. D1, D2, D3 and one Raju Konar were sons of both Chinnakannu Ammal and Parvatha Konar. Since Raju Konar also died, his two sons, being legal heirs were brought on record as D5 and D6. Vengammal-D4 and Saroja-D7 are daughters of Chinnakannu Ammal and Parvatha konar. Whileso, the stridhana property given to Chinnakannu Ammal under the deed dated 12.4.1946 admeasuring 1 acre and 50 cents was divided into two equal shares, namely, each 75 cents to the two daughters, namely, D4-Vengammal and D7-Saroja. Only after the stridhana property of Chinnakannu Ammal was divided into two equal shares and allotted to Vengammal-D4 and Saroja-D7, from Saroja-D7, the plaintiff by virtue of sale deed dated 14.12.1994 had purchased the suit property. Therefore, the sons of Chinnakannu Ammal and Parvatha Konar, namely, D1, D2 and D3 and Raju Konar cannot have any right or title over the suit property. It was also averred by the plaintiffs/respondents herein before the Courts below that the suit property, namely, 75 cents was allotted to Saroja-D7 by way of oral partition in the year 1970. It was also the case of the plaintiffs that when Chinnakannu Ammal s stridhana property admeasuring 1 acre and 50 cents was divided into two equal divisions, namely, 75 cents, one division admeasuring 75 cents was allotted to Vengammal-D4, and the other division of 75 cents was allotted to Saroja-D7. Vengammal-D4, in the year 1970 through mortgage deed dated 07.12.1970 Ex.A14 mortgaged the property to Saroja-D7 another sister, and the D3/appellant herein by signing the mortgage deed as one of the witnesses to Vengammal-D4 and Saroja-D7 accepted the title of 75 cents allotted in favour of Vengammal-D4. Therefore, when D3/appellant herein had accepted the ownership and title of 75 cents allotted in favour of Vengammal-D4, it is not open to him to challenge or disagree the suit property, namely, 75 cents allotted to Saroja-D7.

(3.) It was also the case of the defendant No.3 that the entire 1.50 acres was divided into four shares from east to west, the western part having 75 cents was allotted to the D3/appellant herein and the adjacent eastern 25 cents was allotted to D1 and the next eastern 25 cents was allotted to the said Raju Konar and the eastern most 25 cents was allotted to D2. It was also the case of the defendant No.3/appellant that he had purchased 75 cents in the settled properties which was allotted to the other defendants, namely, D1, D2 and D4 under registered sale deed dated 20.03.1995. On that basis, it was contended that Saroja has no right or title over the suit property. Under this background, the matter was taken up for trial.