B. MAHENDRAN Vs. B. POOMPAVAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge is made to the decree and judgment of the trial Court dismissing the suit. The plaintiff is the son of the first defendant and brother of defendants 2 to 4.

(2.) It is the case of the plaintiff that, the father of the plaintiff was a gold smith and he performed marriage of all his children and he had purchased the property in the name of the first defendant. Apart from that purchase, he has also purchased two more the properties in which one is in the name of the plaintiff and the same was disposed during the life time of D.Bakthavatchalam. The another property situated at Permbur had been purchased in the name of the defendants 1 and 4, wherein the fourth defendant is in use and occupation of the same. According to the plaintiff, the property has been purchased from the earning of the plaintiff's father. The mother of the plaintiff is the house wife and she has no independent income to purchase any property. Only for the family convenience, the property has been purchased in the name of the first defendant and she is only a name lender. Therefore, the plaintiff prayed to pass a preliminary decree dividing the suit property into five equal shares and allot 1/5 shares each to the plaintiff and the defendants 1 to 4.

(3.) The first and the third defendants filed a written statement denying the contention of the plaintiff. According to them, the suit property has been purchased from and out of the self earned income of the first defendant as she was vending milk in and around her residence. She already executed a Will dtd. 10/1/2019 in favour of defendants 2 and 3. It is further contended that the property already settled in favour of the plaintiff, in which all the defendants have equal rights. Hence, he opposed the suit.