CHINNA KARUPPA NAICKER Vs. V KARUPPA NAICKER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A. S. No. 917/1991 filed against the judgment and decree dated 21. 8. 1991 in O. S. No. 93/1985 on the file of the Sub Judge, gobichettipalayam and Transfer Appeal. No. 508/1997 against the decree and judgment dated 21. 8. 1991 in O. S. No. 184 of 1987 on the file of the Subordinate judge of Gobichettipalayam. These appeals arise out of a common judgment dated 21. 8. 1991 in O. S. Nos. 93/1985 and 184 of 1987 of the Sub Court, gobichettipalayam, in and by which the learned Sub Judge decreed the suit in part in O. S. No. 93/1985 and decreed the suit in entirety in O. S. No. 184/1987.

(2.) FOR convenience, the parties are referred as arrayed in O. S. No. 93/1985. The plaintiff in O. S. No. 93/1985 states as follows. The suit properties are joint family properties of the plaintiff and defendant. The defendant was the Kartha of the joint family and he was in management of the joint family. The defendant was in possession of joint family funds of Rs. 50,000/ -. The defendant is bound to render accounts for the said funds. The properties stand in the name of defendant are really joint family properties since they have been purchased from out of joint family funds. The plaintiff is entitled to a moiety in those properties. The consideration for those sales were provided from the joint family funds. The defendant has no independent means to purchase the property without the aid of the joint family funds. The plaintiff never denied the legitimate rights of the defendant in the entire joint family properties. The defendant abused his position as the kartha of the joint family, embezzled joint family funds, purchased valuable properties in his favour, committed breach of confidence and trust. The defendant is still in possession, and cultivating the lands only as a coparcener and for convenience sake. It is no longer possible for him to enjoy the entire joint family properties in common. He demanded for a partition even in 1977. But the defendant was postponing the same. The plaintiff demanded for partition during first week of Avani 1985 again, to which the defendant refused. Hence, the suit properties are to be divided into two equal shares with reference to good and bad soil and one such share is to be allotted to the plaintiff otherwise the plaintiff will be put to irreparable loss and damages which cannot be compensated in money value. Hence, the suit.

(3.) FROM the year 1985, the plaintiff and defendant are enjoying their respective shares as per the oral partition. The red marked portion in the plaint plan was allotted to the share of the plaintiff. The plaintiff is enjoying the suit property separately. He has paid kist to the government. The plaintiff has supplied paddy to the Government for levy. He has raised sugarcane crop in the suit property and supplied to Sakthi Sugars.