RAMASAMI Vs. PERIAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred against the decree and judgment passed in O. S. No. 197 of 1983 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Dharapuram.

(2.) THE plaint averments in brief are as follows: (a ). The plaint schedule property originally belongs to Lakshmana Gounder, who is the father of the plaintiffs and the third defendant. The first defendant is the wife of Lakshmana Gounder. The plaintiffs and the second defendant are the daughters of Lakshmana Gounder. Third defendant is the son of Lakshmana Gounder. After the death of Lakshmana Gounder, plaintiffs are each entitled to 1/5 share in the plaint schedule property. The third defendant is leading a wayward life. Third defendant never allowed the plaintiffs to enjoy the plaint schedule properties, which are self acquired properties of their father Lakshmana Gounder. Third defendant is now attempting to sell the plaint schedule properties which necessitated the plaintiff to send a suit notice on 05. 05. 1983 to third defendant and other defendants. On 11. 5. 1983 the third defendant has sent a reply notice wherein he would state that Lakshmana Gounder had borrowed loan and without discharging the said loan he died and that subsequent to the death of Lakshmana Goudner, the third defendant had discharged the said loan, are all false. Lakshmana Gounder had not borrowed any loan during his life time. The third defendant had not given any Seervarisai during the marriage of the plaintiffs. The third defendant is 21 years younger than the plaintiffs. The claim of the third defendant that the was enjoying the plaint schedule properties for the past 14 years adverse to the interest of plaintiffs are all not true. The averments that the third defendant has discharged his father's loan amounting to Rs. 15,000/- by selling the jewels of his wife is also a tissue of falsehood. The third defendant has not discharged any loan left by Lakshamana Gounder and there was no necessity for the same because Lakshmana Gounder had not borrowed any loan during his life time. As far as S. No. 951 and 953 are concerned third defendant had partitioned the same along with other sharers, but the said partition will not bind the plaintiffs because they are not parties to the said partition. The third defendant has not spent Rs. 300/- towards carrying out repairs in the house. There is no mutation effected in the revenue records in respect of the suit properties in the name of the third defendant as contended by him. Hence, the plaintiffs filed the suit claiming their 2/5 share in the suit properties.

(3.) THE third defendant has filed a written statement which was adopted by the first Defendant, reads as follows: