S. BALAKRISHNAN Vs. S. AYYAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful plaintiffs in O.S.No.198 of 2003, which was dismissed by the Trial Judge viz., learned Additional District Judge/Fast Track Court I, Coimbatore by his judgment and decree dated 30.9.2003, are the appellants in the appeal. Initially, the defendants 1 to 5 therein have been arrayed as respondents 1 to 5 in the appeal. During the pendency of the appeal, the first respondent Ayyammal died and appellants 1 to 3 and the remaining respondents viz., respondents 2 to 5 have been recorded as her legal representatives.

(2.) Admittedly, the suit property had been purchased under a sale deed dated 10.2.1946, a certified copy of which has been produced as Ex.A2. The vendor under the said sale deed was none other than Nanjappa Gounder, the father of the decreased first respondent Ayyammal. Ayyammal's husband was one Subbiah Gounder. Their sons are appellants 1 and 2/plaintiffs 1 and 2 and respondents 2 to 4/defendants 2 to 4. The third appellant/third plaintiff and the fifth respondent/fifth defendant are their daughters. The appellants/plaintiffs claim that the purchase made under the original of Ex.A2 sale deed was not made with the funds of the purchaser therein viz., Ayyammal and on the other hand, the sale deed came to be executed by Nanjappa Gounder because Ayyammal's husband Subbiah Gounder discharged the usufructuary mortgage executed in favour of one Lakshmi Ammal. The certified copy of the said mortgage deed dated 25.1.1944 came to be produced as Ex.A1 before the Trial Court. It was the further contention of the appellants/plaintiffs that, after the purchase of the property in the name of Ayyammal, the ground floor and first floor portions were constructed with the funds provided by Subbiah Gounder and his two daughters viz., the third appellant/third plaintiff and the fifth respondent/fifth defendant. Based on their contention that the property was the property of Subbiah Gounder though it stood in the name of Ayyammal, the appellants/plaintiffs had filed the suit praying for partition.

(3.) The respondents/defendants resisted the suit contending that the suit property was the self-acquired property of Ayyammal, who purchased it from the income derived by her from the Tiffin shop she was running for several years. It was the further contention of the respondents/defendants that constructions were put up with the funds available with Ayyammal derived from her business and also the funds provided by her elder son viz., the second respondent/second defendant in addition to her own funds.