PANDURANGAM Vs. ANNAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE unsuccessful defendant before the Courts below concurrently is the appellant.

(2.) THE respondent as plaintiff filed the suit for partition and separate possession of her alleged share in the suit properties on the following grounds: viz., that the suit properties originally belonged to one Thanappa Gounder as his self acquired properties, that he died intestate leaving a son by name Venkatachalam and a daughter by nameAnnammalas his heirs, that since the properties were owned by Thanappa Gounder as his self acquired properties,Annammalwas entitled to share, which she had sold to the plaintiff on 30.1.1984, that the defendant is enjoying the properties, having purchased the same, as if all the properties belonged to Venkatachalam, though Venkatachalam was entitled to only share and that since the claim for partition was negatived, which should be considered by the Court, granting the relief as prayed for.

(3.) THE learned trial Judge mainly relying upon Ex.A3 as well as holding, that the defendant had not discharged the burden of proof viz., failed to prove that the plaintiffs vendor is not the daughter of Thanappa Gounder, concluded that plaintiffs vendor is the legitimate daughter of Thanappa Gounder, entitled to inherit his properties, that though there were some ancestral properties as per the evidence, the defendant failed to prove that Thanappa Gounder should have purchased the other items from the income derived by him from the joint family properties and in this view, treating the suit properties as self acquired properties, held that the share sold by the plaintiffs vendor must be one half, that the suit is not bad for partial partition and that the defendant has not prescribed title to the suit properties by adverse possession. In this view, declaring the plaintiffs share, a preliminary decree was granted on 18.1.1990, which was challenged before the District Court, Villupuram in A.S.No.105/94.