M.RANALINGAM Vs. A.MUTHUSAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Plaintiff in O.S. No. 372 of 1990 on the file of Sub Court, Namakkal is the appellant. He filed the suit for partition claiming 1/5th share in the suit property and the suit was dismissed and aggrieved by the same, this appeal is filed. The case of the plaintiff as seen from the plaint is as follows: The first defendant was the father and he had four sons, namely, the plaintiff, defendants 2 and 3 and Suseendran who died and his legal representatives are the defendants 5 to 8. The fourth defendant was the mother of the plaintiff/defendants 2 and 3. The properties are the joint family properties of the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3 and 5 to 8 and therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to 1/5 share in the suit property. The first defendant sold the suit property to defendants 9 to 11 and therefore, they were impleaded.

(2.) The first defendant contested the suit by filing statement stating that the suit property was his separate property and plaintiff had no right over the same. The suit property was purchased from and out of his earnings under Ex. A1 on 23.10.1974 and in that property, the plaintiff had no right by birth and as the owner of the property, he was entitled to sell the property and the plaintiff cannot question the same.

(3.) The fourth defendant filed a memo stating that she had no objection for granting decree as prayed for by the plaintiff and the fifth defendant filed a statement stating that the suit property was purchased in the name of the first defendant as he was the head of the family and the husband of the fifth defendant was living with the first defendant and in March, 1987 there was a family arrangement and in that family arrangement Door No. 55 in Bank Street was allotted to plaintiff and Door No. 57 was allotted to the third defendant and the suit property was allotted to the husband of the fifth defendant and father of the defendants 6 to 8 and on 26.12.1986, the first defendant mortgaged the suit property to ninth defendant and it was agreed that the husband of the fifth defendant has to repay the same and redeem the mortgage and the plaintiff and third defendant were enjoying properties given to them by the first defendant and the suit property belongs to the defendants 5 to 8 and therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief.