MARUTHACHALAM Vs. BALARAMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment shall govern the two appeals. These two second appeals have arisen from the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore, made in A.S.No.7/90 dated 19.8.1991 wherein a common judgment was rendered. Those two appeals arises from the judgement of the Learned District Munsif, Coimbatore, made in O.S.No.2366 of 1989 and O.S.No.345/81 respectively in a suit for partition and recovery of possession.

(2.) The following are the necessary facts for the disposal of these appeals. The plaintiffs and defendants 1 and 2 were the children of one Venkatachala Pannadi who died on 3.12.1979; that the said properties belong to the family ancestorally; that on his death the plaintiffs are entitled to 14/24th share and the rest to the defendants as the last succession; that the defendants 3 to 7 entered into different agreement of sale with Venkatachala Pannadi and the same would not be binding on the plaintiffs since they were not the parties to the same; that the defendants 3 to 7 pursuant to the said agreements have raised temporary sheds in the properties and they have also been in possession of the same; that under the said agreement, the defendants 3 to 7 could not get any right over the property since they have acted against the terms of agreement even during the life time of Venkatachala Pannadi; that since the defendants are making attempts to trespass into the said property, there arose a necessity for division of the property and also for recovery of possession.

(3.) The first defendant filed a written statement stating that he was entitled to 9/24th share and the second defendant is entitled to 1/24th share. The suit was vehemently contested by the other defendants. The case of defendants 4 to 6 and 9 was that during the life time of Venkatachala Pannadi, the property was exclusively belong to Venkatachala Pannadi; that he entered into different written agreement of sale; that the defendants agreed to convey 5 cents of land each and got Rs.200 advance from each of them and pursuant to the agreement, they got possession and they have raised construction therein; that they issued notice to the plaintiffs on the death of Venkatachala Pannadi but they evaded the same and have broughtforth the suit vexatiously. The 8th and 9th defendant filed written statement stating that they did not agree with the plaintiff's plea that they have trespassed into the property; that pursuant to an oral agreement of sale, they have got possession of the property and they have been there by raising construction therein and thus, they could not be vacated.