VARADHAN DIED Vs. MANORANJITHAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE unsuccessful second defendant is the appellant in this appeal.

(2.) THE first respondent/plaintiff filed the suit before the Trial Court for partition and separate possession of her 1/5th share in the suit property by metes and bounds. The 1st appellant as well as respondents 2 to 7 resisted the suit on various grounds. The learned Trial Judge, namely, the District Munsif, Sholinghur, dismissed the suit and the first respondent, aggrieved over the decree and judgment passed by the trial court, preferred the first appeal in A. S. No. 17 of 1992 before the Subordinate Judge, Ranipet. The learned Subordinate Judge, having analysed the evidence on record, found that the first respondent/plaintiff is entitled to a decree as prayed for. Hence, the first appeal was allowed setting aside the decree and judgment passed by the trial court and the decree for partition as prayed for was passed by the First Appellate Court. Hence, the present Second Appeal.

(3.) THE contentions of the first respondent/plaintiff in the plaint are as follows:- (a) The properties in question originally belonged to Kothandapattu Pillai, who is the father of the defendants 1 and 2 and the deceased Shanmuga Pillai. The 3rd defendant is the daughter and the 7th defendant is the wife of the said Kothandapattu Pillai. The said Shanmuga Pillai died about 15 years ago leaving behind him the plaintiff as his only heir. The said Kothandapattu Pillai died a few years ago. After their death, the plaintiff and defendants are in possession of specific portions of the suit properties thereby raising crops in the respective portions of the suit properties. The plaintiff is entitled to a common 1/5th share while the defendants 1 to 3 and 7th defendant are each entitled to a common 1/5th share in the suit properties and they are in joint possession of the suit properties. (b) While so, even though on 25. 8. 1984 the plaintiff demanded the defendants 1 to 3 and 7 to divide the suit properties into five equal shares and to allot one such share to her as there was misunderstanding between them, they refused to have an amicable partition of the suit properties thereby denying the plaintiff's legitimate share in the suit properties. In the meantime, the defendants colluded together and created some documents purporting to be the sale deeds in respect of the suit properties without any consideration in favour of the defendants 4 and 5, which they are not entitled. The entire suit properties are liable to be divided by the metes and bounds. Hence, the suit.