A.SELVAMANI Vs. MANICKAM AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff in the suit is the appellant. She filed a suit for partition claiming 3/12 share in the suit properties against the respondents. The suit was partly decreed in respect of "D" schedule properties in Ex.A1, Partition Deed dtd. 25/4/1966. The suit was dismissed in respect of "C" schedule properties in Ex.A1, Partition Deed. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant/plaintiff preferred an appeal. The First Appellate Court also affirmed the findings of the Trial Court. Hence, the appellant has come before this Court by way of this second appeal.

(2.) According to the appellant/plaintiff, the suit properties originally belonged to Marimuthu Padayachi and his brothers. The said Marimuthu Padayachi had two sons namely Kuppusamy and Narayanan. The appellant/plaintiff is the daughter-in-law of said Narayanan and her husband Subramaniam died on 6/12/1992. There was a partition in the family in the year 1966. Under the partition deed dtd. 25/4/1966, the "D" schedule properties were alloted to the said Narayanan and "C" schedule properties were alloted to Kuppusamy. It was averred by the appellant that Kuppusamy died 20 years back and his wife Sivabakkiam also died in the year 1990 without any issues. Therefore, the properties allotted to the Kuppusamy devolved on his brother Narayanan's family and the properties alloted to Kuppusamy were enjoyed along with the properties allotted to Narayanan. The husband of appellant/plaintiff namely Subramaniam died on 6/12/1992.Thereafter, the appellant demanded partition of her share in the joint family. As the respondents were not willing to go for partition, she was constrained to file a suit for partition in O.S.No.124 of 2007 on the file of II Additional Sub-Ordinate Judge, Salem.

(3.) The respondents herein filed written statement and claimed that the property allotted to Kuppusamy was enjoyed by him till his death. Thereafter, it devolved on his wife Sivabakkiam and she enjoyed the same till her death on 7/6/1993. It was also claimed by the respondents that during the lifetime of Sivabakkiam, she executed a Will in favour of 6th defendant namely Yuvaraj and hence, the appellant/plaintiff was not entitled to any share in the suit property.