A.PERUMAL (DIED) Vs. SURESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The second and the third defendants in O.S.No.50 of 2009 on the file of Principal District Judge, Dharmapuri has laid this Appeal Suit aggrieved by the judgment and decree in the said Suit dtd. 29/8/2011 in and by which the prayer for partition of the suit properties made by the plaintiffs/ respondents 1 and 2 herein was decreed by the Trial Court. In this judgment, the parties are referred to in the same ranking as before the Trial Court.

(2.) The case of the plaintiffs is that the first defendant Perumal is the father and the first plaintiff Suresh, the second plaintiff Poongodi, the second defendant Vasudevan, the third defendant Ramesh and one deceased Jayamala (represented by her legal heirs, the defendants 4 and 5 in the Suit) are the children of Perumal.

(3.) The Suit schedule properties are the ancestral properties of the said Perumal. The first defendant namely, the father-Perumal, had become unwell at the time of filing of this Suit and therefore the plaintiff felt that the other defendants are acting in a manner so as to cause loss to the plaintiffs and to deprive them of their lawful share in the suit schedule properties and therefore they issued a legal notice requesting the defendants including the father, for partition and separate possession of the suit properties on 29/10/2009. For the said legal notice, the second defendant Vasudevan, the third defendant Ramesh and the minor 4th defendant representing the deceased Jayamala issued a reply notice dtd. 6/11/2009 stating as if there is an oral partition already made, which is factually incorrect. Hence, the Suit for partition and separate possession of 2/6 th share to the plaintiffs and for mesne profits and costs.