ROJA MALAR Vs. MARIAPPAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED against the judgment and decree in A. S. No. 19 of 1992 in and by which the Sub Court, Sankari has allowed the said appeal and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the District Munsif Court, Sankari in O. S. No. 100 of 1990, the plaintiff has preferred this second appeal.

(2.) THE material grounds alleged in support of the second appeal are to the effect that the release deed marked as Ex. B1 dated 25. 7. 1984 is void and not binding upon the plaintiff and that the lands purchased under the sale deeds marked as Exs. B4 to B6 in the name of the mother of the first defendant have been impressed with the character of joint family properties and thereby the plaintiff is entitled to get half share in 1 acre 90 cents covered by Survey No. 110/b that was allotted to the first defendant as per the partition deed dated 3. 3. 1988 marked as Ex. B7 on the strength of section 29a of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and so on.

(3.) THE plaintiff viz. , minor Roja Malar, through her next friend and mother Ammasi filed the suit in O. S. No. 100 of 1990 against her father the first defendant viz. , Mariappan and his minor sons viz. , defendants 2 and 3 through the second wife of Mariappan for the relief of partition of the plaint schedule properties viz. , 0. 05 hectare in survey No. 110/1a with a well and motor pumpset, 1. 73 hectare in Survey No. 110/1b into two half with the simple allegation that the suit properties are ancestral properties of the plaintiff and defendants obtained by the first defendant through a registered partition deed dated 3. 3. 1988 and that the plaintiff becomes a co-parcener on the strength of the amended Hindu Succession Act (Tamilnadu Amendment Act, 1989) and that in spite of notice issued to the first defendant for partition, the first defendant has not complied with the demand and that since defendants 2 and 3 cannot claim any share upon the suit properties in view of the fact that the first defendant himself has denied the marriage between himself and the mother of defendants 2 and 3 Kamalam in the proceedings viz. , C. C. No. 336 of 1979 and M. C. No. 12 of 1989 on the file of the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sankari.