M A K BALAKRISHNAN Vs. P CHANDRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendants 3 to 6 are the appellants. Originally the plaintiff C. Amminiammal filed a suit, on the file of the Original Side of the High Court, Madras, in C.S.No. 429 of 1988 against one Devaki and Bhuvaneswari, for partition of her half share in the suit properties. The case of the plaintiff C. Amminiammal was that her son Govindaraju was allotted plot No. 4832, 6th Cross Road, Anna Nagar, Madras and before he obtained a sale deed from the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, he died in harness on 14.01.1985 leaving behind his widow the 1st defendant and the plaintiff, namely the mother and therefore, both the plaintiff and the first defendant are entitled to each undivided half share in the property left by Late Govindaraju and during the pendency of the suit before the Original Side, an application in A.No. 1913 of 1988 was filed by the plaintiff for an order injunction restraining the first defendant from alienating the suit property and that was also ordered on 21.04.1988 and despite the same, the first defendant sold the property to the defendants 3 and 4 and the defendants 3 and 4 in-turn settled the property in favour of the defendants 5 and 6 and therefore, they were also impleaded as one of the defendants. Later, the suit was transferred to City Civil Court, Chennai due to the enhancement of pecuniary jurisdiction of the Hon'ble High Court and renumbered as O.S.No. 4710 of 1996 and thereafter, C. Amminiammal died and therefore, her legal-heirs were added as plaintiffs 2 to 5 and C. Amminiammal alleged to have executed a Will, dated 17.12.1992 and under the Will, she bequeathed of her right over the suit property in favour of her sons, namely the plaintiffs 2 to 5 and therefore, the plaintiffs 2 to 5 together inherited half share of C. Amminiammal and the 2nd plaintiff died leaving behind the plaintiffs 6 to 9 as his legal- heirs and therefore, they are entitled to half share in the undivided property of the deceased Govindaraju.

(2.) The defendants 1 and 2 filed a statement stating that the 2nd defendant was the adopted daughter of Govindaraju and the first defendant and the adoption took place in the year 1975 as per the Hindu Customs and Usage and after the death of Govindaraju, his widow and daughter, namely the 2nd defendant inherited the property and the plaintiffs mother has no right or title over the property and even assuming that Govindaraju died intestate, the mother was entitled to only 1/3rd share and not half share.

(3.) The defendants 3 to 6 also filed a separate statement stating that the first defendant purchased the property in her name from the Housing Board and therefore, the property was her absolute property and the plaintiffs were not in joint possession with her and the first defendant sold the property in favour of the defendants 3 and 4 under two registered sale deeds and they in- turn settled the properties to defendants 5 and 6 and therefore, they are the absolute owners of the property and therefore, the suit has to be dismissed.