CHINNAPPAN Vs. RADHAKRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The suit filed for partition and possession was allowed by the trial Court, but reversed by the first appellate Court. The unsuccessful plaintiff, who lost the case before first appellate Court is the the appellant herein.

(2.) Brief facts as pleaded by the rival claimants are as follows:

(3.) The defendants 1 and 2 in their written statement denied the plaint averments. According to them, Elumalai had other legal heirs, apart from the defendants 1 and 2. Therefore, the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. Sreeranga Gounder had very small extend of property measuring 12x51 feet. The plaintiff released his share in the said property in lieu of the marriage expenses met out by his brother Elumalai. For the plaintiff's marriage, Rs.563/- was spent by Elumalai. After the relinquishment of the plaintiff right over the share in the suit property, after his life time, Elumalai and his legal heirs are in possession and enjoyment of the properties. Hence, the plaintiff has no share in the suit property.