ARUNACHALAM Vs. ARASAZHAVAR AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) What is challenged herein is the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge, Tuticorin, made in A.S.No.28 of 1989 affirming the judgment of the trial Court in a suit for declaration and consequential reliefs.

(2.) Necessary facts for the disposal of this appeal are as follows: The suit property and two other items originally belonged to the three brothers namely Devapiran Pillai, Thothathirinatha Pillai and Ramasamy Pillai. The plaintiffs are the daughters of Devapiran Pillai. Devapiran Pillai executed a registered maintenance deed dated 27.6.19 21 in favour of his sister Gomathy Ammal, giving her a life interest in the suit property, and after her life time, it should go to the three brothers or their legal heirs. Devapiran Pillai died leaving behind the plaintiffs as heirs. Thothathirinatha Pillai died unmarried. The said Gomathy Ammal died in the year 1972. The third defendant alone survived the other two brothers. The third defendant demanded the plaintiffs for partition, and in the ora l partition among the members of the family, the third defendant was given 35 cents in S.No.8 39A/2 and 1.36 acres in S.No.841A/6, and the plaintiffs were given the suit property. The third defendant sold his share to one Samy Naicker and others. The third defendant has no right over the suit property. After the life time of Gomathy Ammal, the property was in the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs alone. One Alagiri Ramanujam managed to get patta in his name in respect of the suit property. On petition by the plaintiffs, the entry in that regard was deleted by the Tahsildar, and patta was issued to the plaintiffs and to the third defendant on the basis of the maintenance deed dated 27.6.1921. Taking advantage of the patta, the third defendant colluded and conspired with the defendants 1 and 2 and brought about a sham and nominal sale deed in the name of the defendants 1 and 2. The third defendant sold the suit property to the defendants 1 and 2. Hence, the plaintiffs were constrained to file the suit for the said reliefs.

(3.) The suit was resisted by the defendants 1 and 2 stating that the alleged maintenance deed was false; that the plaintiffs' father had no right to execute such a deed; that the said Gomathy Ammal never enjoyed the property pursuant to the deed; that she relinquished her right in the suit property on 18.7.1964; that there was no partition between the plaintiffs and the third defendant; that after the said relinquishment by her, the third defendant alone was entitled to the properties; that the defendants 1 and 2 purchased the same from the third defendant, and they were in enjoyment of the same, and hence, the suit was to be dismissed.