LAWS(MAD)-2024-10-4

KALARANI Vs. KATHIRVEL

Decided On October 22, 2024
Kalarani Appellant
V/S
Kathirvel Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Second Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Decree dated October 6, 2020 made by the 'Principal District Court, Namakkal' ['First Appellate Court' for short] in A.S.No.80 of 2019, whereby the Judgment and Decree dated December 11, 2017 of the Subordinate Court, Namakkal ['Trial Court' for short] made in O.S.No.111 of 2012 was partly modified. Dissatisfied with the First Appellate Court's Judgment and Decree, the plaintiff has preferred this Second Appeal.

(2.) In the Original Suit, the appellant herein is the plaintiff, the 1st respondent herein is the 2nd defendant, and the 2nd respondent herein is the 1st defendant. Hereinafter, for the sake of convenience, the parties will be denoted as per their array in the Original Suit.

(3.) One Kali Gounder had two sons, Muthusamy and Seerangan. Muthusamy had one son, namely the first defendant, and one daughter, namely Kamali. The Suit Properties are ancestral and joint family properties of Muthusamy (plaintiff's grandfather). It consists of 19 items, out of which, majority were originally ancestral and joint family properties allotted to the share of Muthusamy vide Registered Partition Deed dated July 12, 1972 as 'A' Schedule properties; the rest were purchased by Muthusamy from and out of the income derived from the allotted ancestral and joint family properties, and they were enjoyed by him as ancestral and joint family properties. The said Kamali, who got married before the year 1989, predeceased Muthusamy. Hence, the said Kamali has no right in the Suit Properties which are ancestral and joint family properties. The plaintiff is the daughter of the first defendant while the second defendant is first defendant's son. After the demise of Muthusamy, the Suit Properties are enjoyed as joint family properties by the plaintiff and the defendants, wherein the plaintiff is entitled 13 share. When the plaintiff approached the defendants on May 25, 2012 for partition, they refused for the same. Hence, the Suit for partition. Defendants' Case in Brief