S.LAKSHMI Vs. P.VELUSAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The suit in O.S.No.568 of 2010 was instituted, seeking partition and separate possession of the plaintiff 's alleged 1/7th share in the suit properties. According to the plaintiff, the suit properties were the self-acquired properties of his father, late Palanisamy Gounder, who had purchased Item Nos.1 and 2 under registered sale deeds dtd. 14/2/1985 and 29/6/1964 respectively and enjoyed the same till his death. It was pleaded that late Palanisamy Gounder died intestate on 25/5/2010 leaving behind the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 6 as his legal heirs and that, despite repeated requests made for amicable partition, the defendants failed to co-operate, thereby necessitating the filing of the suit.

(2.) The 1st defendant filed a written statement, which was adopted by defendants 4 and 5, admitting the relationship between the parties as well as the fact that the suit properties were the self-acquired properties of late Palanisamy Gounder. However, the defendants specifically denied the allegation that late Palanisamy Gounder died intestate. It was contended that during his lifetime, while in a sound and disposing state of mind, late Palanisamy Gounder had executed three registered settlement deeds dtd. 27/11/2009 in favour of defendants 1, 4 and 5 respectively, under Document Nos.5281/2009, 5279/2009 and 5280/2009, and had also delivered possession of the settled properties to them. It was further pleaded that the settlement deeds had been acted upon, pattas mutated in their names and revenue records accordingly changed.

(3.) The contesting defendants further contended that defendants 2, 3 and 6 had already been adequately provided for during their marriages by late Palanisamy Gounder with jewels, seers and other gifts and, therefore, there was no necessity for him to allot any separate share to them in the suit properties. It was also pleaded that late Palanisamy Gounder and his legal heirs had sold certain ancestral properties on 14/6/2006 and that the plaintiff alone had appropriated the sale proceeds without distributing the shares due to late Palanisamy Gounder and the other sharers. According to the defendants, the plaintiff had also threatened late Palanisamy Gounder demanding share in the suit properties, compelling him to lodge a police complaint in Avinashi Police Station on 4/10/2007. It was further contended that Item No.2 of the suit properties was jointly owned with third parties and, therefore, the suit was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.