LAWS(MAD)-2023-11-113

GOWRI Vs. POORANIAMMAL (DIED)

Decided On November 30, 2023
GOWRI Appellant
V/S
Pooraniammal (Died) Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendants 2 to 5 are the appellants. The first respondent and his mother Pooraniammal filed a suit for partition claiming 7/18 share in the suit property. The Trial Court granted preliminary decree for partition of 11/36 share in favour of 1st plaintiff Pooraniammal, 6/36 share in favour of 2nd Plaintiff/1st Respondent, 6/36 share in the suit property in favour of defendants 1 and 3, 3/36 in favour of second defendant and 2/36 in favour of defendants 4 and 5. Aggrieved by granting of decree in respect of items 17 to 20, the appellants preferred an appeal. The first Appellate Court reversed the findings of the trial Court insofar as items 17 to 20 are concerned and set aside the decree for partition in respect of items 17 to 20. In other respects, the decree passed by the trial Court was confirmed. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants 2 to 5 have come by way of this second appeal.

(2.) According to the plaintiffs, the first plaintiff is the wife of one deceased Kannan and the second plaintiff is the son of Kannan. The defendants are other legal representatives of the said Kannan and suit properties item 1 to 17 are self acquired properties of Kannan. After his death, the plaintiffs and defendants are entitled to share in the said properties left out by Kannan, since they are all sons, daughters and Class I heirs of deceased sons Palani and Harikrishnan. Therefore, the first plaintiff Pooraniammal and 2nd plaintiff Saravanan claimed 4/18 and 3/18 share respectively and laid suit for partition jointly claiming 7/18 share.

(3.) The defendants filed a written statement contending that there were other properties which had not been included in the plaint, purchased in the name of Pooraniammal by deceased Kannan. It was further contended that Pooraniammal had no independent source of income to purchase the property in her name and those properties were purchased by Kannan out of his own funds. The said properties were described in the written statement of the defendants. Those properties in items 17 to 20 were treated as joint family properties and a preliminary decree for partition was passed by the Court below.