K ARUMUGAM Vs. MEERA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The brief averments found in the suit plaint are as follows:

(2.) On the plaintiff's side plaintiff 4 witnesses were examined and 7 documents were marked and on the side of the defendant, defendant alone examined as D.W. 1 and 6 documents were exhibited. After perused the oral testimony and documents of both sides, the trial Court has decreed the suit with regard to 1st and 2nd items of the suit schedule properties in favour of the plaintiff and dismissed in respect of 3rd and 4th items of the suit schedule property. In the appeal preferred by the 1st defendant the learned Sub-Judge, Ami, has dismissed the appeal and confirmed the Judgment and decree of the trial Court. Aggrieved against that order the 1st defendant preferred this Second Appeal. In this Second Appeal the following substantial questions of law have arisen for consideration:

(3.) Both parties are daughters and son of one Thanji Ammal. She was in possession of suit 1st item property poromboke land 2nd item, the machineries of flour mill in item No. 1. She died on 8.2.1999. She appointed 1st defendant to manage the flour mill on her behalf. It is pleaded in the plaint that she got the properties by way of family arrangement, that she has paid the payment for 'B' Memo, which is evident from Ex. A.5 receipt particulars for the Fasli 1400 to 1409. Ex. A.6 is extract of the property tax demand register for the years 1990-91 to 1995-96 and 1996-97 to 1999-2000. The trial Court has thoroughly appreciated the oral evidence on record of the parties and concluded the suit in favour of the plaintiff that the property belongs to Thanji ammal by virtue of family arrangement. But the property got by Thanji Ammal by family arrangement are poromboke lands. The learned counsel for the 1st defendant says that the property cannot be treated as family asset.