K ATHAPPAN DIED Vs. PALANIAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred against the decree and Judgment in O.S.No.327 of 1986 on the file of the I Additional Sub Court, Erode. The defendants in the suit are the appellants herein.

(2.) THE averments in the amended plaint in brief are as follows: THE defendants 1 to 3 are brothers and they are the sons of 1st plaintiff. THE 4th defendant is the son of defendant. THE first plaintiff and defendants 1 to 4 constitute a Hindu Undivided Joint Family and the suit properties are the ancestral joint family properties of the said undivided joint family. THE first defendant and his son 4th defendant have started "Shanthi Thirai Arangu", theatre and they had been running the Cinema in the said Thirai Arangu. But the defendants 1 to 4 did not give accounts for the profits realised. THE first plaintiff called for the account from them and misunderstanding arose because of that. In view of the attitude of the defendants, it is no longer possible to have entire properties to be managed by the first plaintiff as Kartha of the family. THE first plaintiff thought it fit to have a regular partition of the plaint schedule properties. For the purpose of registering the regular partition deed, the first plaintiff is not for it. THE defendants 1 to 3 about 15 days prior to the filing of the suit. i.e., on 21.9.1986 registered the deed but the defendants did not turn up. Hence the plaintiffs have filed the suit for partition of 1/4th share in the profits of the cinema theatre. An exparte preliminary decree was passed, which was set aside as per order in I.A.No.565 of 1988. THE first plaintiff Kaliappa Gounder died intestate on 22.2.1989 leaving his three sons, viz., defendants 1 to 3 and his only daughter the second plaintiff as his legal representatives. After the death of Kaliappa Gounder, the second plaintiff became entitled to a share in the estate of the deceased father Kaliappa Gounder. THErefore, the second plaintiff has been impleaded as necessary party to the suit and to adjudicate the matter properly. THE first plaintiff had also executed a Will bequeathing his share in the name of Palaniammal (Second plaintiff). Hence the suit.

(3.) IN the additional reply statement filed by the plaintiff, it has been contended that if the document dated 14.1.1981 is produced in Court, the first plaintiff reserved his right to make further reply statement in the earlier proceedings. The said document was filed only on 2.3.1992. The signature in the said document dated 14.1.1981 is not the signature of the first plaintiff and the defendants are bound to prove that the said signature is true, genuine and that of the first plaintiff. The second plaintiff submits that defendants ought to have forged the signature in the said document.