AMUDHA AND ORS. Vs. JANARDHANAN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal arises out of the Judgment and Decree dated 11.12.2007 in A.S. No. 25 of 2006 on the file of the District Court, Thiruvannamalai modifying the Judgment and Decree dated 21.02.2006 in O.S. No. 58 of 1994 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Arni.

(2.) THE first respondent as a plaintiff filed a suit for partition and separate possession of his 5/12 share in A, B, C, D and E schedule properties. 'A' schedule property has been purchased by the plaintiff's father and his brother, 'B' schedule property is the ancestral property, 'C' schedule property was purchased in the name of the plaintiff out of the joint family income, 'D' schedule property has been purchased out of the income derived from the 'A' schedule property in the name of the deceased Sridhar, who is the brother of the plaintiff. 'E' schedule property is the Company by name Sriram Engineering Works at Chennai. All the properties are treated as joint family properties. The plaintiff claim right over the properties stating that he and one Sridhar are the sons of Sampath, who is the son of Balakrishna Naidu. Balakrishna Naidu had two sons, namely, Panirandu Azhwar Naidu and Sampath. Sampath had two sons and two daughters, namely, Janardhanan/the plaintiff, Sridhar, Sudamani/4th defendant and Jayagantham/5th defendant. The said Sridhar died leaving his wife, Amutha/1st defendant and two sons, namely, Minor Sriram/2nd defendant and Minor Srinivasan/3rd defendant. Since, the plaintiff sought for partition, the first defendant raised a plea stating that she had no objection for dividing A, B and C schedule properties and she further stated that D and E schedule properties were separate properties of her husband Sridhar and prayed for an order in accordance with law.

(3.) THE learned First Appellate Court has considered the argument advanced on either side and framed necessary point for consideration and allowed the appeal in respect of 'D' schedule property stating that the property has been purchased out of joint family nucleus and dismissed the appeal in respect of 'E' schedule property. Against granting of preliminary decree in respect of 'D' schedule property, the defendants 1 to 3 have preferred the present second appeal.