RAMASWAMY Vs. MUTHUSWAMY GOUNDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SECOND defendant in O.S. No.645 of 1980 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Dindigul, is the appellant in the above second appeal. The first respondent herein, plaintiff in the said suit filed the same for partition and separate possession of his l/3rd share in the suit properties by metes and bounds.

(2.) THE case of the plaintiff is as follows: THE plaintiff and the second defendant are the sons of the first defendant and they belong to an undivided Hindu joint family. THE suit properties belonged to the joint family. Items 1 to 3 of the plaint A schedule are the ancestral joint family properties and items 4 to 13 of the plaint A schedule were later acquired out of the joint family income in the name of the first defendant, who is the kartha and Manager of the joint family for the benefit of the family on 19.2.1960. After the purchase, a house was constructed. THE suit properties are managed by the first defendant, and some of the suit properties are leased out to the third defendant. THE suit lands are yielding a good income. THE plaintiff through some well wishers approached defendants 1 and 2 and demanded partition by metes and bounds on 30.1.1980. Though they have agreed for amicable partition, they are postponing the same. He is entitled to partition and separate possession of his l/3rd share in the suit properties.

(3.) THE second defendant filed a separate written statement wherein he has stated that items 4 to 13 of the plaint A schedule properties were purchased from out of the income of items 1 to 3 of the plaint A schedule properties. In the oral partition effected in the year 1971 in the presence of the panchayatdars, items 1 to 3 of the plaint A schedule lands and one well with 3 H.P. electric motor and pump set and 1/ 3rd share in another well were allotted to the share of the first defendant. THE eastern portion of the house and the northern portion of items 4 to 13 of the plaint A schedule properties were allotted to the share of the plaintiff and the western portion of the house and the southern portion in items 4 to 13 were allotted to the share of the 2nd defendant. THEy are in possession and enjoyment of their respective properties by paying tax ever-since the oral partition. He has improved the lands allotted to him at a cost of Rs.5,000 and has constructed a house at a cost of Rs. 15,000 in the property allotted to him. THE plaintiff has filed the suit at the instigation of the defendants 1 and 3 to grab at the properties allotted to him in which he has made improvements. THE first defendant has no debts. THEre is no necessity for a second partition and as such the suit is liable to be dismissed with costs.