BABY AND ORS. Vs. VELKANNAN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendants 11 and 12 in O.S. No. 229 of 2004 on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif, Mayiladuthurai are the appellants. The 1st respondent is the plaintiff in the suit and the others are the other defendants. The said suit was filed for partition and for allotment of 1/9th share of the plaintiff. The trial court by decree and judgment dated 04.02.2005 passed a preliminary decree for partition as prayed for. As against the same, the appellants herein/defendants 11 and 12 filed an appeal in A.S. No. 65 of 2005 on the file of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Mayiladuthurai. By decree and judgment dated 10.02.2006, the lower appellate court dismissed the appeal thereby confirming the decree and judgment of the trial court. As against the same, the appellants are before this Court with this Second Appeal.

(2.) The case of the plaintiff in brief is as follows:

(3.) The defendants 1, 2 and 5 to 9 remained ex -parte. The other defendants contested the suit. According to the appellants, the suit property was not owned by Kuppusamy Naidu at all. It is their specific case that in a court auction, the father of the 10th defendant purchased the suit property, but, in the name of Kuppusamy Naidu. Thus, though the title deed stood in the name of Kuppusamy Naidu, the suit property belonged only to the father of the 10th defendant. The father of the 10th defendant was one Mr. Ramakrishna Naidu. Thus, according to the appellants, Ramakrishna Naidu was the absolute owner and after his death, his son, the 10th defendant had inherited the same. From the 10th defendant, the 11th defendant purchased a portion of the suit property for a valuable consideration and the 12th defendant purchased the another portion of the suit property from the 10th defendant. Thus, according to both the appellants/defendants 11 and 12, the plaintiff is not entitled for partition.