M. SUBRAMANIAN Vs. KARUPPAYEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal has been filed challenging the concurrent findings of the Courts below. The plaintiffs in the suit in O.S.No.25 of 2009 on the file of the Sub Court, Devakottai are the appellants herein. The respondents are the defendants in the said suit. The plaintiffs are the children of the first respondent / first defendant.

(2.) The plaintiffs have filed the suit for partition claiming that the suit schedule property is a joint family property and that they are entitled for 2/3rd share therein. However, the contentions of the plaintiffs were disputed by the first respondent / first defendant, as she has contended that the suit schedule property is her self acquired property. The first respondent / first defendant has also sold the property to the second respondent / second defendant under a registered sale deed and the second respondent / second defendant has subsequently agreed to sell the suit schedule property to the third respondent / third defendant. Based on the pleadings of the respective parties, the trial Court, namely the Sub Court, Devakottai, framed issues. In the forthcoming paragraphs, the parties are described as per their litigative status in the suit.

(3.) Before the trial Court, the plaintiffs filed 9 documents, which were marked as Exs.A1 to A9 and four witnesses were examined on the side of the plaintiffs, namely Subramanian as P.W.1, Backiyam as P.W.2 and Kasinathan as P.W.3 and Allimuthu as P.W.4. On the side of the defendants, eight documents were filed, which were marked as Exs.B1 to B8 and three witnesses were also examined on the side of the defendants, namely, Karuppayee as D.W.1, Jeyalakshmi as D.W.2 and Valli as D.W3. Apart from the documents marked through the defendants, two documents were marked as exhibits as Exs.X1 and X2.