PANNEERSELVAM Vs. RAMAMOORTHY UDAYAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the first defendant. The plaintiff has filed a suit for partition by claiming half share in the suit properties. The trial Court has decreed the suit as prayed and passed a preliminary decree for half share in the suit properties in favour of the plaintiff. The first appeal preferred by the defendants was dismissed by confirming the judgment of the trial Court. Aggrieved over the same, the first defendant has preferred the present Second Appeal.

(2.) The facts pleaded by the plaintiff in the plaint in brief:- The suit properties were originally belonged to one Chinthambi Udaiyar who is the father-in-law of the plaintiff. Chinthambi Udaiyar had two daughters and no sons. The third defendant is one of the daughter of Chinthambi Udaiyar and the other daughter's name is Valliammai. Chinthambi Udaiyar had settled the suit property in favour of third defendant and Valliammai through a settlement dtd. 20/9/1968 and handed over possession. At that time Valliammai was a minor and hence her mother Agilandammal had taken possession as her guardian and she had handed over the properties to Valliammai after she attained majority. Valliammai married the plaintiff. The suit properties were kept as common by the third defendant and Valliammai.

(3.) The written statement filed by the defendants 2 and 3 in brief: The fact that the father of the third defendant had executed a settlement deed dtd. 20/9/1968 in her favour and her sister Valliammai is correct. It is false to state that the settlement deed in favour of the third defendant's son the fourth defendant was obtained by fraud on 26/3/1979. The plaintiff had deserted Valliammai and he was having extra-marital relationship with the other women. Hence, Valliammai was under the custody of her sister, the third defendant. Only out of love and affection, Valliammai had executed the settlement deed in favour of the fourth defendant on 26/3/1979. From then onwards Items 3 to 7 and 10 and 11 were enjoyed by the third defendant's family. The plaintiff had never been in individual or joint enjoyment of the suit property and the settlement deed in favour of the plaintiff dtd. 5/11/1979 is not true and valid. It should be a concocted document by playing fraud on Valliammai. The defendants 3 and 4 are alone are in the enjoyment of the suit property without any interference. The third defendant had executed a sale deed in respect of Items 3 to 7 in favour of the second defendant on 2/3/1993 and handed over possession. The third and fourth defendant have sold Items 10 and 11 in favour of the first defendant and handed over possession. The third defendant, Valliammai and Agilandammal have sold Items 1 and 2 in favour of one Poomalai Udayar and his wife Azhagammal on 17/9/1993 and 5/12/1973 and handed over possession. From then onwards Items 1 and 2 were enjoyed by Poomalai Udayar family.