D. PAPPATHY Vs. D. ARUMUGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Second Appeal arises out of the judgment and decree dtd. 22/2/2013 passed in A.S. No. 17 of 2012 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Coimbatore reversing the judgment and decree dtd. 29/9/2011 made in O.S. No. 212 of 1993 on the file of the learned I Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore.

(2.) The Plaintiff in O.S. No. 212 of 1993 is the Appellant in this Appeal. She has filed the suit as against the Defendants 1 to 13 for a partition to divide the plaint described property into 6 equal shares with reference to good and bad soil, allot one such share to her, to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to divide the suit properties and to allot the legitimate share to her, to direct the Defendants to pay the future mense profits till the date of allotment and for costs.

(3.) It is stated in the plaint that the Plaintiff, Defendants 1, 2, 3, 8 and late. Chinnasamy are the children born to late. Dasa Gounder. In other words, the deceased Dasa Gounder had 4 sons and 2 daughters. The Defendants 4, 5, 6 and 7 are the legal heirs of the deceased Chinnasamy, brother of the Plaintiff. On 29/11/1998, the said Dasa Gounder died leaving behind the Plaintiff and Defendants 1 to 8 as his legal heirs. It is stated that the A Schedule described property of the plaint was purchased through a registered sale deed dtd. 26/11/1945 by the deceased Dasa Gounder. Subsequently, the deceased Dasa Gounder purchased B Schedule property of the plaint through a registered sale deed dtd. 17/12/1957 in his name. On 22/6/1976, through a registered sale deed, the father of the Plaintiff and Defendants 4, 5, 6, and 7 had purchased the C Schedule property. Thus, the properties described as A, B and C in the schedule of the plaint was the self-acquired property of her father. Therefore, after the death of her father on 29/11/1988, the Plaintiff approached the Defendants directly and through Panchayatars for amicable partition of the properties described under Schedule as A, B and C but it was refused by the Defendants. On the other hand, the Defendants attempted to alienate the properties and therefore, the Plaintiff sent a notice dtd. 9/4/1992 to the Defendants 1 and 8 calling upon them to divide and allot 1/6 share in the plaint described properties. Though the Defendants 1 and 8 received the notice, they did not give any reply and therefore, the Plaintiff has filed the suit.