M.M. KUMARESAN Vs. M. SHANMUGAVADIVU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A.S. Nos.345 of 2017 and 898 of 2018 are arising from O.S. No.770 of 2008 on the file of 'V Additional District Judge, Coimbatore' (henceforth 'Trial Court'). A.S. Nos.350 of 2017 & 899 of 2018 are arising from O.S. No.65 of 2017 on the file of the Trial Court. Since, all these Appeals are arising out of a Common Judgment and Decree, dated April 19, 2017, they are disposed of by this Common Judgment.

(2.) For the sake of convenience, the parties will hereinafter be referred to as per their array in the Partition Suit namely, O.S. No.770 of 2008. Case of the Plaintiff:

(3.) The Suit properties are the absolute properties of M. Mylsamy Gounder by virtue of a registered Partition Deed, dated April 30, 1952. He possessed and enjoyed these properties as his own until his death. He died intestate on May 24, 1996, leaving behind the Plaintiff and the First Defendant (D1) as his Legal Heirs, who are each entitled to half share in the Suit properties. Since their father's death, the Plaintiff and D1 have jointly possessed and enjoyed the Suit properties, sharing the expenses and income from them. Over the past six months, misunderstandings have arisen between the Plaintiff and D1, leading to the Plaintiff demanding a Permanent Partition of the Suit properties. In the last week of June 2008, the Plaintiff learned that D1 had executed a Gift Settlement Deed in favour of his wife - Second Defendant (D2), regarding a portion of the Suit properties for constructing a new house. On June 25, 2008, a Panchayat was convened at the Plaintiff's instance to resolve the dispute. In the Panchayat, D1 stated he would not give any share in the Suit properties to the Plaintiff and instead offered a monetary amount in lieu of her share. The Plaintiff did not accept this offer. Subsequently, it was found that D1, intending to defeat and defraud the Plaintiff's rights over the Suit properties, had executed a Gift Settlement Deed, dated June 26, 2007, in favour of D2 concerning 21 Cents in Survey No.708 included in the Suit properties. He had no right to do so. Additionally, it was discovered that the names of D1, the Third Defendant (D3), and the Fourth Defendant (D4) were surreptitiously included in the Pattas concerning the Suit properties, which is void and not binding on the Plaintiff.