MARUTHANDI KONE Vs. SEENI AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The legal representatives of the deceased 1st defendant are the appellants. The 1st respondent herein filed a suit for partition of her half share and the suit was decreed. The said decree was confirmed in the first appeal filed by the 1st defendant. Aggrieved by the concurrent judgments, the legal representatives of the deceased 1st defendant have come up by way of this second appeal. Pending second appeal, the 1st and 2nd appellants were dead and their legal representatives were brought on record as appellants 5 to 8. Likewise, the legal representatives of the deceased 1st respondent were brought on record as respondents 5 to 12 and the legal representatives of the deceased 2nd respondent were brought on record as respondents 13 to 18.

(2.) According to the 1st respondent/plaintiff, the suit properties are the joint family properties in joint enjoyment of the 1st respondent/plaintiff and the defendants. The suit properties originally belonged to Muthu Rakku Kone and he had two sons viz., Seenimuthu Kone and Vellaiseeni Kone. The 1st respondent/plaintiff is the daughter of Seenimuthu Kone. The predecessor in interest of the appellants viz., the 1st defendant and respondents 2 and 3/defendants 2 and 3 are the children of Vellaiseeni Kone. According to the 1st respondent, the suit properties have been in possession and enjoyment of the parties without any partition and the predecessor of the appellants viz., the 1st defendant, Maruthandi acted as Kartha of the family in his capacity as senior most member. It was also pleaded that since the said Maruthandi and respondents 2 and 3 failed to agree for amicable partition, the 1st respondent herein was constrained to file a suit for partition claiming her half share in the suit property.

(3.) The predecessor of the appellants viz., the 1st defendant, Maruthandi filed a written statement denying the averments found in the plaint. In his written statement, he contended that except suit Items 5, 7 and 8, all other items were ancestral properties. He specifically claimed that there was an oral partition between the father of the 1st respondent Seenimuthu and the father of Maruthandi and respondents 2 and 3 viz., Vellaiseeni. He also denied the claim made by the 1st respondent that Maruthandi acted as Kartha of the family. In respect of Item 7, it was contended by the appellants' predecessor that Government patta was issued to him in recognition of his possession and B-Memos were issued to him. In respect of Item 8, it was contended by him that it was his separate property, as he obtained Samasthana patta under Ex.B.25 from the erstwhile Ramanathapuram Samasthanam. In respect of Items 3 to 6, it was contended that the 1st respondent's father released his share over the same in favour of the said Maruthandi under Ex.B.2 release deed. As far as Items 1 and 2 are concerned, it was contended in the written statement that it was allotted to the said Maruthandi in an oral partition, which was referred to in Ex.B.19-Will. In respect of Item 9, it was contended that out of the total extent of 11 acres and 94 cents in Item 9, 3 acres and 60 cents lying on the southern side belonged to the 1st respondent's father and the said portion was bequeathed to the 1st respondent under a Will. The remaining 8 acres and 27 cents on the northern side belonged to the said Maruthandi and the 2nd respondent. On these pleadings, the predecessor of the appellants sought for dismissal of the suit.