JAGADEESAN Vs. JAYALAKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Appeal Suit is filed aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dtd. 13/7/2011 delivered by the Additional District Judge, (Fast Track Court) Vellore, in O.S.No.26 of 2016, in and by which, a preliminary decree was passed for the division of the suit property into 20 equal shares and allotment and delivery of possession of 6/20 shares to the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs being permitted to file separate proceedings for the rendition of accounts for the income derived from the suit properties for the three preceding years from the date of filing of the suit under Order XX Rule 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and also granting the permanent injunction restraining the defendants from in any manner alienation of the suit property till partition. B.The plaint :

(2.) The case of the plaintiffs is that they are the legal heirs of one Govindasamy. The said Govindasamy and the first defendant/Jagadeesan are the sons of one Narayanasamy, through his first wife, namely, Dhanabakiyam. The second defendant/Unnamalaiammal, is the second wife of Narayanasamy, through the said second wife, a daughter, namely, Gaja/ the third defendant, and a son, namely, Dhanapal/the fourth defendant were born. The suit properties were the ancestral properties of the said Narayanasamy and upon his death devolved upon the plaintiffs and the defendants. A family arrangement was also attempted, but, the parties wriggled out of the same. Therefore, the said Govindasamy filed a suit for a partition and separate possession in O.S.No.395 of 1998, which was later transferred and re-numbered as O.S.No.153 of 1996. However, the said suit was dismissed for default for non-appearance. While so, the defendants started acting as per their proclaimed family arrangement and further documents have been attempted to be created. Hence, the suit. C.The Written Statements:

(3.) The first defendant filed a written statement stating that, as per the family arrangement dtd. 9/3/1987, the suit properties have already been divided into metes and bounds. The plaintiffs cannot seek an alternative or fresh partition. The first defendant denied that there was no such item as mentioned under item No.7 in the suit schedule. As a matter of fact, in the family arrangement dtd. 9/3/1987, in the property described in Schedule 'B' thereto, the half share was allotted to the sister of the said Narayanasamy, and they have also filed a suit for partition of their share, in which a compromise was effected and the said sisters are not added as parties in the instant suit. As far as the properties in the possession of the first defendant are concerned, he has been enjoying the same for more than 30 years in his own interest and therefore, he has perfected his title. The said Manickammal and Govindammal, the sisters of the Narayanasamy were allotted the properties and they have also sold their properties to third parties. The first plaintiff's husband Govindasamy also filed a suit in O.S.No.153 of 1996, which was dismissed, and therefore, the present suit filed by the plaintiffs is hit by Order II Rule 2 and Order IX Rule 9 of Code of Civil Procedure. It is also contended that the suit is barred by limitation and prayed for dismissal of the suit.