K. RAJESWARI Vs. PADMAVATHI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Civil Suit is filed by the plaintiff for partition of the suit properties into four equal shares and allot one such share to the plaintiff; to appoint an Advocate Commissioner for actual division of the suit properties and put the plaintiff in possession of her 1/4 share; to restrain the first defendant, her men and agents from alienating the suit properties; to direct the defendants to pay the plaintiff her share of profits in the suit properties from the date of suit, and to direct the defendants to pay the costs of the suit to the plaintiff.

(2.) IT is the case of the plaintiff that she is the mother of K. Dayalan, who died intestate on 04.02.2011, that the first defendant is his widow and the defendants 2 and 3 are his minor daughters; that the said K. Dayalan is the eldest son of the plaintiff, that since he was her first son, the first item of the suit properties was purchased in his name out of the funds supplied by her husband and the other sons; the house that stood in her name was sold in order to keep the first item of the suit properties with the family of her husband and his other sons; the debts incurred on the security of the first item of the suit properties, were cleared from the funds provided by her husband and her other sons, that her husband and her other sons contributed money to her deceased son K. Dayalan for improving the first item of the suit properties in order to augment the income of the plaintiff's family; the first item of the suit properties is available for partition on the death of the plaintiff's eldest son K. Dayalan, as the plaintiff and the defendants are Class -1 heirs entitled to equal shares in the suit properties; that the deceased Dayalan and the defendants were residing in a portion of the first item of the suit properties, that after his death, the defendants are in possession of the same as co -owners; that the deceased son of the plaintiff, namely K. Dayalan collected rents from the tenants on leasing out the other portions of the first item of the suit properties, that he was paying a portion of the rent to the plaintiff towards her share and his father, that the plaintiff's husband invested his retirement benefits in the first item of the suit properties, that as there is no pension and other income after the retirement of the plaintiff's husband, they are depending upon the rental income from the first item of the suit properties, that after the death of the plaintiff's son, the first defendant is avoiding to pay the plaintiff's share in the rental income which she is collecting, that the Life Insurance Policies were in the name of the deceased son and there was Bank Accounts in his name and first defendant's name, that the plaintiff is in joint possession of the suit properties with the defendants, that the plaintiff is entitled to 1/4 share in the jewels which includes family jewels, and the same are with the first defendant, that since the first defendant refused to heed to the plaintiff's legitimate demand, she issued lawyer's notice dated 23.08.2011 to the defendants demanding partition and separate possession of her 1/4 share in the suit properties as well as the amounts which were lying in the credit of the deceased son's Bank accounts at the time of his death, besides the amount due under the Life Insurance Policies; that the defendants issued reply notice dated 08.09.2011 through Advocate stating that her brothers helped her, that the deceased son had not taken any Insurance Policy, that the deceased did not deposit any amount in his Bank Accounts and he maintained zero balance and the said account was closed after his death, that the deceased did not invest any amount in shares, that the deceased obtained a loan from M/s. G.E. Money Finance and after his death, the said loan was discharged at Rs. 3,60,000/ - from the first defendant's brother, that in order to discharge a loan of Rs. 7,50,000/ - borrowed by the deceased from one Kuppusamy, the defendants were forced to sell a property measuring 62 cents at Enathi Melpakkam, Gummidipoondi Taluk, that the said allegations in the reply notice of the defendants, are false and therefore, she has filed this suit for the reliefs stated supra.

(3.) BY order dated 19.08.2013, this Court framed the following issues for consideration in this suit: - -