RAJAMANICKAM Vs. ALAMELU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondents / plaintiffs namely Mrs.Alamelu and R.Madhavan have filed a Civil Suit in O.S.No.102 of 2004 on the file of Additional District Court at Salem, against the appellants / defendants herein to pass a preliminary decree for partition making provision for passing final decree and they sought the following relief:

(2.) Aggrieved by the said ex-parte decree the defendants had filed a supplementary application in I.A.No.87 of 2005 in O.S.No.102 of 2004 to set aside the ex-parte decree passed on 03.08.2005. In the said application the second respondent namely R.Madhavan had filed a counter statement and refuted the set aside application. Thereafter, the trial Court dismissed the said application stating that the defendants had filed a set aside application after a lapse of 3 years, as such the defendants have not shown any interest.

(3.) Aggrieved by the said order and decree passed in I.A.No.87 of 2008 in O.S.No.102 of 2004, on the file of Additional District Court at Salem dated 12.12.2008. The highly competent counsel Mr.R.Dasaratha Rao appearing for the appellants submits that the first plaintiff Mrs.Alamelu was not a widow of Venkataraja konar, the status misconceived by the first plaintiff, actually there was no marriage that took place between the first plaintiff and the said Venkataraja konar. Further both of them were lived as husband and wife at Konar Rice Mills. The second plaintiff is the brother of the first plaintiff. The first plaintiff stated that the marriage was solemnized on 22.08.1991 and on that day Venkataraja Konar age was 53 years and the first plaintiff's age was 38 years. It clearly proves that the first plaintiff concocted the story for the purpose of making a wrongful gain through the partition suit. Further, the Venkataraja konar was living along at Door No.79, Cuddalore Main Road, in order to prove the same ration card and voters list are documentary evidence.