SUBRAMANIYAN Vs. BALAMURUGAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Defendants 1 to 3 in O.S. No.1 of 2012, who had suffered a Decree for Partition and Separate Possession of half share of the Plaintiff in the Suit properties are the Appellants.

(2.) For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as per their rank in the Suit.

(3.) The Plaintiff laid a Suit for Partition and Separate Possession of his half share contending that the Items 1 to 10 of the Suit properties belonged to the Joint Family of Rathinam Nainar and his three sons including the 1st Defendant. At a Partition that took place between the Rathinam Nainar and his sons on 21/7/1994, the Suit properties were allotted to the 1st Defendant, father of the Plaintiff. The 1st Defendant married the Plaintiff's mother Amudha on 4/9/1989 and the Plaintiff was born out of the said wedlock. It is also pleaded that the 1st Defendant drove away the Plaintiff's mother from the Matrimonial home during the year 1992-1993 and has been living with the 2nd Defendant since then and had married the 2nd Defendant in the year 1994. The Plaintiff would claim that the marriage between the 1st Defendant and the 2nd Defendant, having taken place during the subsistence of the marriage between the 1st Defendant and the Plaintiff's mother Amudha, is invalid. It was also pleaded that the 3rd Defendant born out of the wedlock between the 1st Defendant and the 2nd Defendant cannot claim to be a Coparcener, as he would succeed only to the properties of his father viz., the 1st Defendant as per Sec. 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act.