(1.) THE sole plaintiff in the original suit, who suffered a decree of dismissal of her suit in O.S.No.200 of 2006 dated 17.08.2009 on the file of the II Additional District Munsif, Erode, after unsuccessfully prosecuting the appeal before the lower Appellate court, namely, the court of the III Additional Sub Judge, Erode in A.S. No. 68 of 2009, has come forward with the present Second Appeal against the decree of the first Appellate Court dated 17.02.2012. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to, in accordance with their ranking had in their suit.
(2.) THE plaintiff Dhanabakkiam, the 1st defendant Jayaselvi (since deceased), 2nd defendant Mayavathi and 3rd defendant Indhirani are sisters. They are the children of Manickam born to his first wife Angammal. Angammal died and Manickam married Chellammal. Chellammal had no issues. During the pendency of the suit Jayaselvi died and Devadoss, Malarvizhi, Venkatesh and Balaji, defendants 4 to 7 were impleaded in the suit as her legal representatives. Admittedly, first item of the suit properties was purchased jointly by Manickam and Chellammal by a sale deed dated 12.12.1988, marked as Ex.A1 and the second item of the suit properties was purchased by Chellammal alone under the sale deed dated 10.04.2002 marked as Ex.A3. Both Manickam and Chellammal are no more. Manickam pre -deceased Chellammal. Manickam had four daughters namely, the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3 and two sons namely, Sidhanandhan and Balakumar. Admittedly, Sidhanandhan died after the death of Manickam but during the life time of Chellammal, his step mother. It is not the case of any of the parties that Sidhanandhan had made any bequest. In the absence of any testamentary document, whatever property that might have been held by Sidhanandhan would have devolved upon his step -mother Chellammal as his only legal heir since he died as a bachelor, without any issues. However, Balakumar, who is still alive has not been made a party to the present suit. The suit was filed by the plaintiff for partition and separate possession of the suit properties in the following manner:
(3.) SO far as item 2 of the suit property is concerned, as per the bequest made in the alleged Will of Chellammal, the plaintiff claimed = share and according to the plaintiff the other = share would go to the third defendant Indhirani. On the basis of the above said pleadings, the plaintiff had prayed for the relief of partition and separate possession.