SOUMADY Vs. RAJASEKARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Second Appeal is preferred against the Judgment and Decree, dtd. 15/7/2014 made in A.S. No.24 of 2012 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge. Pondicherry, modifying the Decree passed in O.S. No.116 of 2006, dtd. 29/6/2012 on the file of the Additional Sub-Judge, Pondicherry.

(2.) The case of the Plaintiff/Appellant herein is that, her father Venugopal was a resident of Pondicherry and he married one Bhavani, and due to the wedlock between Venugopal and Bhavani, three children were born. The Plaintiff is the Daughter and the Defendants are the Sons of the said Venugopal and Bhavani. According to the Plaintiff, the father Venugopal owned Suit Item Nos.1 to 4 and the mother Bhavani owned the Suit Item No.5. While so, on 23/7/1998, Venugopal died intestate. The mother Bhavani also died intestate on 24/10/2002. Thereafter, the Plaintiff and the Defendants as Legal Heirs succeeded to their estates. In spite of several demands made by the Plaintiff the Defendants failed to come forward for an amicable Partition. Hence, the Plaintiff caused Legal Notices to the Defendants calling upon them to effect Partition of the properties left by their parents. Even though, the aforesaid Notices were received by the Defendants they have not chosen to allot the share of the Plaintiff. In such circumstances, the Plaintiff was constrained to file the above Suit for Partition and separate possession of 1/3rd share in the Suit properties.

(3.) Resisting the case of the Plaintiff, the Defendants filed Written Statement. The Defendants admits that the Plaintiff and the Defendants were born to the said Venugopal Padayatchi and Bhavani. The said Venugopal Padayatchi and Bhavani died intestate leaving behind the Plaintiff and the Defendants as their Legal Heirs. Further, it is submitted that Item Nos.1 & 2 of the Suit properties were purchased by their father Venugopal under two Sale Deeds, dtd. 3/10/1981 & 29/8/1981 respectively, while Item Nos.3 &