RAMACHANDRA NAIDU DIED Vs. SESHACHALA NAIDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE second defendant in O. S. No. 130 of 1980 on the file of the learned Second Additional Subordinate Judge, Pondicherry , is the appellant. Plaintiffs 1 to 5 are the respondents. THE suit is for partition and separate possession of l/4th share in the suit properties and for future mesne profits in the l/4th share. THE case of the plaintiffs briefly stated is as follows: THE suit properties in Setharapattu village were purchased by Doraisami Naidu and chinnasamy Naidu under a registered sale deed dated 21. 10. 1982. By reason of that sale deed, they became entitled each to an undivided half share in the properties. Duraisami Naidu died in 1944 leaving behind him his two daughters, namely Meenakshiammal (D-1) and Jayalakshmiammal who is now dead. Duraisami's wife predeceased him and so Duraisami's half share was inherited by the above said two daughters and they were in possession of the properties along with Ramachandra Naidu (D-2) son of late Chinnasami Naidu. Jayalakshmi's husband is Seshachala Naidu (first plaintiff) and their sons and daughters are the plaintiff's 2 to 5 herein. THE first defendant and Jayalakshmiam exclusively. THE defendants are entitled to 3/4th share while the plaintiff's branch is entitled to 1/ 4th share. THE share of Duraisami Naidu was taken by his two daughters. Hence the suit.

(2.) THE first defendant in her written statement contended as follows: THE suit properties absolutely belong to the second defendant herein and the plaintiffs can have no right over the same. THE properties were purchased by Chinnasami Naidu and he was in possession of the same absolutely till his life time and after his death, the property came into the hands of the second defendant as the sole heir of Chinnasami Naidu. From the year 1949 till the date of filing of the written statement, the properties were under the ownership and enjoyment of the second defendant. THE first defendant is not entitled to any possession over the suit properties. THE second defendant effected partition of all his properties among his sons and his respective shares are in possession and enjoyment of the respective parties. Hence the first defendant submits that the suit may be dismissed.

(3.) MR. K. Sampath, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents contended that under the Benami Prohibition Act the plea of the defendants that even the sale deed in respect of the suit properties was obtained as early as on 21. 10. 1922 in the name of Doraisami and Chinnasami, chinnasaminaidu alone was entitled to the suit properties absolutely and on his death, the second defendant became entitled to suit properties absolutely, is not tenable. MR. G. Masilamani, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants submitted that in view of the prohibition under the above said Act, the plea that the suit properties belonged to Chinnasaminaidu absolutely, cannot be put forth now and so I have to accept the contention of MR. K. Sampath learned counsel for the appellants that the properties belonged to Duraisami and chinnasami in view of the sale deed dated 21. 10. 1922 under Ex. B-2 standing in the names of both.