ALAMELU AMMAL Vs. GOVINDASAMY NAICKER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1.The 1st appellant is the plaintiff and the 2nd appellant was ordered to be impleaded.

(2.) THE plaintiff's suit is one for declaration and for permanent injunction. THE plaintiff's case is that the suit property originally belonged to the plaintiff's father, Natesa Pillai, who had three daughters, viz. (1) Ponnammal, (2) Visalakshi and (3) Alamelu, the plaintiff herein. Natesa Pillai died in 1976. THE plaintiff and her eldest sister Visalakshi partitioned the properties, left by Natesa Pillai, as per the compromise decree passed in OS.No.41 of 1976, on the file of the Sub Court, Chingleput, where under, the properties are divided as follows:- Natesa Pillai's eldest daughter Ponnammal and her son Radhakrishnan were residing away from the suit Village and during the life time of Natesa Pillai, on their insistence, cash representing her 1/3rd share in the properties was given to her about 25 years back and therefore, Ponnammal and her son Radhakrishnan had no right in those properties. Ponnammal died thereafter. Visalakshi and the plaintiff had sold 1 acre 58 cents in S.No.239/3 and S.No.239/4 to Pattammal, under the sale deed dated 25. 3. 1977 and the said sale deed was attested by Radhakrishnan, son of Ponnammal, with the knowledge of the contents thereof. THE purchaser has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. Visalakshi sold 50 cents, which she got in S.NO.226/2, to the defendant under the sale deed, dated 5. 5. 1980, but had retained her 1/3rd share in the well, 3 HP Motor and pumpset and service connection. THE said 50 cents form south eastern corner of 1 acre 89 cents in S.No.226/2 and the suit land is the remaining land in the said survey number. THE defendant proclaimed that he had recently purchased 50 cents in the suit property from R.Radhakrishnan, son of Ponnammal. According to the plaintiff, the sale is not valid and binding upon her. THE defendant is estopped from denying the title of the plaintiff, since he has already purchased the property from Visalakshi, admitting the partition between her and the plaintiff . Radhakrishnan is also estopped from claiming any interest in the suit property, since he was aware of the partition between Visalakshi and the plaintiff at all relevant times and he also admitted the same, by his attestation of the sale deed by Visalakshi and the plaintiff to Pattammal on 20. 9. 1983. As there was a threat to trespass, the plaintiff filed the suit.

(3.) NATESA Pillai had 3 daughters and also left certain properties. According to the plaintiff, after the death of NATESA Pillai, she and Visalakshi filed a suit in OS.No.41/1976, before the Sub Court, Chingleput, which ended in passing a compromise decree, in which the suit property was allotted to the plaintiff. It is their case that Ponnammal was given cash equivalent to 1/3rd share in the properties during the life time of NATESA Pillai and therefore, Ponnammal and her son Radhakrishnan had no right in the properties left by NATESA Pillai and because of that, Ponnammal was not made as a party to the partition suit.