RAMATHAL Vs. SUPPATHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFF is the appellant against the reversing judgment.

(2.) APPELLANT filed O.S.No.72 of 1984 before the Sub Court, Tiruppur, which was subsequently transferred to the Sub Court, Coimbatore and renumbered as O.S.No.525 of 1985. The suit was for partition. One Thanga Gounder, the grandfather of the plaintiff, had a son named Palanichamy Gounder. Palanichamy Gounder, who died in 1961, and his wife Ramathal, who died in 1981, had three sons and three daughters, including the plaintiff. One of the sons, namely, Natarajan had died in 1977 without leaving any issue. Another son Subramaniam had died leaving behind his widow Suppathal, Defendant No.4 and two minor children, Defendant Nos.5 and 6. The only other surviving son of Palanichamy Gounder, Chinnappa Gounder was arrayed as Defendant No.1. Two other daughters were arrayed as Defendant Nos.2 and 3. According to the plaintiff's case, the suit properties were purchased by Palanichamy Gounder and Ramathal and were the self-acquired properties of Palanichamy Gounder and Ramathal. Since one of the sons Natarajan died issueless, the other surviving children, including the plaintiff and Defendant Nos.4, 5 and 6 representing the branch of the second son Subramaniam, are entitled to 1/5th share in the disputed properties.

(3.) LEARNED single Judge, while disposing of the appeal, allowed the application C.M.P.No.11571 of 1999 by applying the provisions contained in Order 22 Rule 4 of CPC by observing that such respondent had remained ex parte in the trial court and had not filed any written statement, and in view of such order the other three applications were dismissed as unnecessary.