RENGASAMI ANGURAR Vs. NACHARAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The legal representatives of the defendant are the appellants in the above second appeal.

(2.) The first respondent herein filed O.S. No.311 of 1981 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Pudukkottai for partition and separate possession. The averments in the plaint are as follows:- The plaintiff is the daughter of deceased Lakshaman Angurar. Her grandfather Valathan died long ago leaving his two sons namely Ramasami Angurar and Lakshmana Angurar. The defendant is the son of Ramasami Angurar. After the death of Valathan Angurar his properties were inherited by Ramasami Angurar and Lakshmana Angurar and were enjoyed by them jointly. Ramasami Angurar predeceased Lakshmana Angurar. Lakshmana Angurar left behind his wife Kasi Ammal who became entitled to the properties representing the undivided share of Lakshmana Angurar. Kasi Ammal died in or about 1969 leaving the plaintiff only. After the death of Lakshmana Angurar, the defendant and Kasi Ammal enjoyed the properties jointly. It is further contended that after the death of Kasi Ammal, the defendant had been giving the share of income to the plaintiff till about 1975. The plaintiff is in joint possession of the suit properties with the defendant for all purposes. In or about 1975 the plaintiff's husband deserted her and she is living in the house of Lakshmana Angurar. Taking advantage of the helpless position of the plaintiff, the defendant schemed to convert her mother's Sridhana properties about 7 Mas of land in the hands of the plaintiff. Since the plaintiff refused to part away with the properties, the defendant stopped giving her share of income. Inspite of several Panchayats, the defendants did not comply with the demand of partition of the ancestral properties of the defendant's father and the plaintiff's father. It is further contended that after the death of Lakshmana Angurar, his wife Kasi Ammal became entitled to the share by virtue of Hindu Women's Right to Property Act. After the death of Kasi Ammal in the year 1969, the plaintiff is entitled to half share in the suit properties. With these averments the plaintiff prayed for a decree for partition and separate possession.

(3.) The defendant filed a written statement in the following manner:- The defendant admits the relationship between Ramasami Angurar and Lakshmana Angurar. After the death of Valathan Angurar, the suit properties and some other properties were inherited by his two sons. Lakshman Angurar went to Ceylon and returned to the village after the death of Ramasami Angurar and was managing the properties. This defendant and two other brothers were minors when Lakshmana Angurar engaging himself in evil ways and he contracted heavy debts. Therefore, at the instance of close relatives, the family properties were divided and Lakshmana Angurar put this defendant and his brothers in possession of their shares. Five years after the partition, Lakshmana Angurar died and the plaintiff was just then born. In the year 1929, the plaintiff's mother could not manage the properties or the debts. Then at her request and at the instance of the villagers it was agreed that Kasi Ammal should be given some properties to be enjoyed by her till her life time and later given to the plaintiff and it was further agreed that the defendant and his brother Govindasamy should pay off all the family debts created by deceased Lakshmana Angurars Accordingly, the arrangement was put into writing and signed by both the parties and it was duly registered. Accordingly Kasi Ammal enjoyed those properties and after her demise the properties has been inherited and h enjoyed by the plaintiff. The defendant further contended that there was no panchayat as alleged by the plaintiff. The suit is a bad for non-joinder of parties, as this defendant's brother's wife is alive and she should have been added as a party. Subsequent to the death of Lakshmana Angurar there was a partition between this defendant and his brother Govindasamy. He further contended that they have cleared the entire family debts referred above after the death of Govindasamy, his widow had executed a release deed after getting proper consideration whereby she has relinquished her rights in her husband's properties in favour of this defendant. Therefore, this defendant is the full owner. With these averments, the defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit.