CHINNIYA GOUNDER Vs. MARIAPPAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 1st defendant in O.S.No.8 of 1996 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Court, Nagapattinam, is the appellant.

(2.) The respondents 1 to 10 / plaintiffs filed the suit for partition of their 120/242 shares in the 'A' and 'B' schedule properties. The trial Court granted decree declaring that the plaintiffs are entitled to 120/242 undivided share in the suit 'A' schedule properties and Items 1 to 10 and 17 in the 'B' schedule properties and rejected the claim of the plaintiffs in respect of Items 11 to 16 of the 'B' schedule properties. Aggrieved by the same, the 1st defendant filed the appeal and aggrieved by the disallowed portion in respect of Items 11 to 16 of the 'B' schedule properties, the plaintiffs filed the Cross Objection.

(3.) The case of the plaintiffs as seen from the plaint is as follows:- The 1st defendant and one Packri Gounder the father of the plaintiffs were the sons of Kathamuthu Gounder and all the properties were the joint family properties of Kathamuthu Gounder and his two sons. Kathamuthu Gounder died in the year 1968 and the plaintiffs' father Packri Gounder died in the year 1984 and therefore the plaintiffs are entitled to 120/242 shares in the suit properties. It is further stated that Items 1 to 11 in the 'A' schedule properties were purchased in the name of Kathamuthu Gounder, Items 12 to 19 were purchased in the name of Packri Gounder, Item 20 was purchased in the name of 1st defendant/ appellant and Item 21 is the ancestral house. Similarly, in the 'B' schedule properties Items 1 to 6 were purchased in the name of Kathamuthu Gounder, Items 7 to 16 were purchased in the name of the 1st defendant/ appellant and all the properties were treated as joint family properties and though the properties were purchased in the names of Packri Gounder and the 1st defendant/ appellant, those properties were purchased from and out of the income of other joint family properties and therefore the plaintiffs are entitled to partition.