S.MEENA Vs. SIVAKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful plaintiffs in their suit for partition and separate possession are before this court as appellants.

(2.) The long and short of the case is that, the appellants claim l/7th share in the suit property on the premise that they are widow and son of one late Sakthivel. Defendants 1 to 5 are brothers of the said Sakthivel and defendants 6 and 7 are the mother and father of the said Sakthivel. The suit 'B' schedule properties were inherited by the 7th defendant from his father. Thus, the suit properties are an ancestral properties held by the family jointly and constitute a coparcenary. On the demise of Sakthivel 5 years prior to the suit, being one of the 7 coparceners, he is entitled for l/7th share on notional partition and the plaintiffs as his legal heirs are entitled to get his share. The plaintiffs demanded for division of properties, but the defendants evading and the 6 defendant had entered into an agreement for sale on 20/12/2010 with the 8 defendant and got the sale agreement registered. Though the property, which is subject matter of the agreement, stands in the name of 6 defendant, it was purchased only from the surplus fund of joint family and the 6 defendant was only a name lender. The attempt to sell the property is to defeat the right of the plaintiffs. Hence the suit.

(3.) The claim of the appellants is denied by the 6th defendant as below:- Sakthivel is her son, but he remained as a bachelor and died. He never married the first plaintiff as claimed. The suit property was purchased by her on 16/11/1990 from one Munusamy through registered sale deed for Rs.6,000.00 from out of her independent savings and from sridhana. It is her self acquired property held absolutely and not as a member of the joint family constituting her sons and pre-deceased son Sakthivel. She has every right to deal with the 'B' schedule property and as its lawful owner entered into sale agreement with the 8th defendant, but the said agreement did not fructify since the 8 defendant failed to evince any interest to perform his part of contract. Therefore, the said agreement was cancelled through a cancellation deed dtd. 24/02/2011 duly registered. The plaintiffs have no right in the suit property and the suit is laid without any cause.