G.NARAYANAN Vs. K.M.GANAPATHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved over the judgment and decree of the trial court dismissing the suit for declaration and for partition and granting only permanent injunction restraining the defendants except by due process of law, the unsuccessful plaintiff has filed the present first appeal. The parties herein are referred to by their respective ranks before the trial court.

(2.) The brief facts of the plaintiff's case is as follows:

(3.) The first defendant has averred in his written statement that they all belonged to a Hindu Brahmin family and they had a decent living. The first defendant has purchased a property in the name of his father. The first defendant joined as Field Assistant (Technical) in the Highway Research Station on 27/12/1965. After the death of the father of the first defendant, the marriage of his brother was performed by the first defendant. Only at the wish of his mother, the property was partitioned between himself and his brother, though the property has been purchased by first defendant in the name of his father. Besides, the first defendant also purchased a house site in the name of his wife. As the building in which they were residing developed cracks and required reconstruction, the first defendant planned to demolish the same and to reconstruct the building. Therefore, he decided to sell the property purchased in the name of his wife at Mangadu. At the time of purchasing the Mangadu property, the second defendant was aged 12 years and the plaintiff was only 8 years old and they were school going children. The allegation that there was joint family contribution made by others are denied by the first defendant. The Mangadu property was purchased in his wife's name from the earnings of the first defendant and therefore, it is a self acquired property of the first defendant. The plaintiff and the second defendant gave money for reconstruction of the building was denied by the first defendant. It is averred by the first defendant that there was an attempt to murder with criminal intimidation by the plaintiff's wife and his parents-in-law and therefore, the first defendant gave a police complaint. Therefore, the first defendant denies that the suit property is a joint family property or that it was treated so. The second defendant in his separate written statement has stated that there has been no joint family existence at any point of time and the property was purchased even before the plaintiff was born and in respect of the property purchased in Mangadu, the first defendant has purchased the same in the name of his wife. The second defendant has reiterated the most of the contentions of the first defendant in the written statement.