POWNAMMAL Vs. JANAKIAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above second appeal has been filed by the defendant in O. S. No. 645 of 1979 on the file of the District Munsif' ; s Court at Thirupathur, north Arcot District, against the judgment and decree of the learned subordinate Judge, Thirupathur, dated 11. 9. 1992 in A. S. No. 40 of 1991 confirming the judgment and decree of the learned trial Judge dated 31. 3. 1981 in O. S. No. 645 of 1979.

(2.) THE plaintiff claiming to be the wife of late Nataraja moopan, filed the suit of partition and separate possession of her half share in the suit items 1 to 3 and 7 and to direct the defendants to deliver possession of items 4, 5 and 6 of the suit properties to the plaintiff. THE case of the plaintiff before the trial court was that the properties comprised in suit items 4 to 6 belonged to one Kujjali Moopan, who had three sons and the eldest THEnnaiya Moopan was the manager of the Joint Hindu family and from the income of the said joint family properties, the suit items 1 to 3 were purchased in his capacity as the manager of the joint family, that dispute arose in 1960 between the brothers and the ancestral properties have been given to Chinnappan Moopan and Duraisamy Moopan, while THEnniah Moopan received items 1 to 3 family properties. THE further claim was that THEnniah Moopan died and the defendants and one Nataraja Moopan are the legal heirs of THEnniah Moopan and items 1 to 3 were allotted to the defendants in 1966, and Nataraja Moopan acquired items 4 to 6 of the suit properties and was in enjoyment of the same. On 13. 3. 1977, the said Nataraja Moopan are the legal heirs of THEnniah Moopan and items 1 to 3 were allotted to the defendants in 1966, and Nataraja Moopan acquired items 4 to 6 of the suit properties and was in enjoyment of the same. On 13. 3. 1977, the said Nataraja Moopan died leaving behind his wife, the plaintiff as the only heir, the two sons of the plaintiff having died earlier. Hence, the suit for the relief of partition.

(3.) IN view of the disposal of the second appeal, no further orders are required in C. M. P. No. 421 of 1995. Which shall stand dismissed. .