SAROJA Vs. SARASWATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEFENDANTS 1 to 3 in the Trial Court are the appellants. The first respondent has filed the suit for partition and separate possession of her one third share in the suit property, numbering six items all situated at Kallakurichi. The plaintiff's case is that the plaintiff and first and second defendants are sisters and they are the daughters of Devagiammal and Venugopal Naidu. The third defendant is the son of the first defendant. The said Devagiammal died intestate without male issues on 10. 02. 1974 and Venugopal Naidu also died on 24. 12. 1980. The suit properties were acquired by Devagiammal who was in possession and enjoyment till her death.

(2.) ITEM No. 1 of the suit property was purchased by Devagiammal on 08. 06. 1949 under a sale deed marked as Ex. A. 1 and that was a thatched house and she has also obtained the adjacent 6 ft. North to South 110 ft East to West land from Subrayalu Naidu her maternal uncle. Item No. 2 was purchased by Devagiammal under a sale deed dated 17. 07. 1965 marked as Ex. A. 2. Item No. 3 and 4 were purchased under a sale deed dated 11. 05. 1966 marked as Ex. A. 3. Item No. 5 was purchased under a sale deed dated 17. 01. 1967 marked as Ex. A. 4 and Item No. 6 was purchased under a sale deed dated 01. 03. 1971 by Devagiammal marked as Ex. A. 5. Thus all the six items of properties were purchased by her own money and she had been in possession and she has also put up the terraced house. After death of Devagiammal the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 along with Devageammal's husband Venugopal Naidu were each entitled for one fourth share. After the death of Venugopal Naidu who is the father, the first defendant being the elder daughter was managing the property. The plaintiff, defendants 1 and 2 were in joint possession of the suit property except item No. 2 which has been excluded from the plaintiff's possession. On the death of Venugopal Naidu the devolution of share has become one third. In spite of the request by the plaintiff, the defendants 1 and 2 who have been enjoying the property have not heeded to the request. The 4th and 5th defendants appeared to have purchased item No. 2 from defendants 1 to 3 and according to the plaintiff this will not affect her share.

(3.) THE first and second defendants have filed the written statement, as adopted by the other defendants, denying the averment of the plaintiff stating that Devagiammal had no independent property and she had no income of her own. It was Venugopal Naidu, who was an agriculturalist and also conducting a Transport Company, due to the reason that he has incurred lot of debts in his business to avoid the creditors has purchased the property in the name of his wife. It was Venugopal Naidu who has paid the entire sale consideration in respect of those purchases. Since Venugopal Naidu had no male issues he has adopted his daughter's son the third defendant on 06. 02. 1976 under a deed of adoption marked as Ex. B. 1 and the adoption was given by the mother of the third defendant, namely, the first defendant along with her husband Chakrapani on performance of rituals. The said Venugopal Naidu by a will dated 02. 06. 1978 marked as Ex. B. 2 has bequathed his property in favour of the third defendant. Therefore, the plaintiff has no right. It is also denied that the plaintiff was in joint possession.