RAMALINGAM Vs. PALANIYANDI MUDALIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs in O.S.No.178 of 1990 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Court, Cuddalore, are the appellants.

(2.) The appellants/ plaintiffs filed the suit for partition of 6/35th share in the suit properties and for mesne profits. The suit was dismissed and as against the same, the appeal is filed.

(3.) The case of the plaintiffs as seen from the plaint is as follows:- The 1st defendant Palaniandi Mudaliar had two wives and the 1st wife was Sivagami and the 2nd wife is Selvambal, the 2nd defendant. Through his 1st wife Sivagami he had a son by name Kaliaperumal, the 6th defendant and the plaintiffs are the children of Kaliyaperumal. The suit properties were purchased by the 1st defendant along with the 6th defendant and they were doing textile business, money lending and also conducted chit transactions and all the properties were purchased in the name of the 1st defendant as he happens to be the Kartha of the joint family. All the properties were treated as joint family properties and till February 1990 the relationship between the plaintiffs and the defendants were cordial and the 1st defendant was aged 85 years and he was not having good mental condition and he was not able to understand things and the 6th defendant and the plaintiffs are living separately and taking advantage of the same, the 2nd defendant in collusion with the defendants 1 to 5 is attempting to sell the properties of the joint family and they also entered into an agreement of sale with the 7th defendant in respect of Items 11 and 12 and a portion of Item 18 was sold to the 9th defendant and Item 27 was sold to the 8th defendant and those sales are not binding on the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs issued notice to the defendants 1 and 2 for partition and they sent a reply stating that the 6th defendant executed a release deed on 5.1.1972 and the release deed is not valid and the properties are the joint family properties and therefore the plaintiffs are having share by birth in those properties and the 6th defendant cannot execute the release deed relinquishing the rights of the plaintiffs and the said document dated 5.1.1972 is sham and nominal one and even assuming that the document is a valid document it has no legal force and therefore the properties are to be divided into 35 shares and the plaintiffs are entitled to six shares out of 35 shares.