RACHAYEE AMMAL Vs. KALIANNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiffs 1 to 4 in O. S. No. 70 of 1988 are the appellants in A. S. No. 600 of 1992. THE said suit was filed for a declaration that an amount of Rs. 13993. 88 being the price of sugarcane lying with the third defendant is belonging to the plaintiffs or in the alternative for a decree of partition and allotment of 4/10th share, apart from declaring that the item 2 of the suit property belonging to the plaintiffs or in the alternative granting 4/10th share and for a permanent injunction against the defendants 1 and 2 from carrying on agricultural operation alternatively praying for the decree of partition and allotment of 4/10th share to the plaintiffs in the suit properties.

(2.) AMONG the plaintiffs in the suit, the first plaintiff is the mother and other plaintiffs are her daughters. The first defendant is the son of the first plaintiff and the brother of the other plaintiffs and the second defendant is the wife of the first defendant. It is also now admitted by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants across the bar that the appellants 1 to 3, who were plaintiffs 1 to 3 in the suit, have joined with the respondents 1 and 2, namely, the defendants 1 and 2 in the suit and only the 4th defendant who is the 4th appellant is conducting the proceedings.

(3.) THE first defendant has filed the written statement. While admitting the relationship between the parties, the first defendant denies the allegation of oral partition between Veerappa Gounder and the first defendant. According to the first defendant, the said Veerappa Gounder and himself were enjoying the specified portions for convenient purposes and they formed part of the Hindu Undivided Joint Family till the death of Veerappa gounder. According to the first defendant, his father Veerappa Gounder along with his brother by name Palaniyandy and his two sons Kaliyannan and Veerappan, apart from the said Veerappa Gounder"s father Muthu Veerappa Gounder and the said Veerappa Gounder"s mother Karupayee have divided the properties under a registered partition deed on 14. 04. 1972. In the said partition deed, the first defendant as well as his father Veerappa Gounder were parties and they were allotted jointly A Schedule properties in the said partition deed and after allotment they continue to be in joint possession. THE first defendant also denied the execution of a Will by Veerappa Gounder on 24. 12. 1986 and therefore, the claim of the plaintiffs that the first plaintiff has a life interest and other plaintiffs have vested remainder, was also denied. According to the first defendant, even if the Will is true the same is not valid in law, since the first defendant"s father himself has no right to execute a will bequeathing a specified item of joint property, since the same does not exclusively belong to him.