C.VASUDEVAN Vs. LAKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful plaintiff has filed the above Second Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 30.09.2011 in A.S.No.42 of 2011 on the file of the First Additional District Court, Coimbatore, confirming the judgment and decree dated 11.02.2011 in O.S.No.268 of 2008 on the file of the First Additional Subordinate Court, Coimbatore.

(2.) The case of the plaintiff is that the two items of the suit properties originally belonged to one Ramanna Gounder as his ancestral properties. He died intestate on 17.04.1959 leaving behind his wife Devathal, son Rangasamy @ Raju and four daughters, namely Ramathal, Kaliammal, Sengammal and Rangathal. Ramanna Gounder's wife died in 1965. Thereafter, the suit properties devolved on the five children of Ramanna Gounder, each one entitled to ? share. Rangasamy @ Rasu Gounder and his four sisters died. The plaintiff is one of the children of Rangathal. Rasu Gounder's heirs are one Gopalsamy and the third defendant Sivakami. The said Gopalsamy died and his wife and son are defendants 1 and 2. All the other defendants are heirs of the four sisters stated above. The suit properties are undivided common properties. The plaintiff demanded the defendants for partition. The defendants 1 to 3 are attempting to alienate the suit properties to the third party in collusion with the other defendants. The plaintiff is entitled to 1/15 share in the suit properties and is entitled for partition. He issued a legal notice on 27.03.2008 to the defendants for partition. The defendants 1 and 3 alone sent reply objecting to the partition and the other defendants did not send any reply. Hence, the plaintiff has filed the suit for partition of items No.1 and 2 of the suit properties into fifteen equal shares in each of the properties by metes and bounds with respect to good and bad soil and to allot one such share in each of the suit items to the plaintiff; for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating or encumbering the item Nos.1 and 2 of the suit properties to any third party and for costs.

(3.) The defendants 1 and 2 filed written statement, stating that the suit properties belonged to Ramanna Gounder ancestrally and the relationship mentioned in the plaint had been admitted by the defendants 1 and 2. The said Ramanna Gounder did not die in 1959 as alleged by the plaintiff, but he died some time in 1948-1949. On his death, the entire suit property devolved on his only son Rangasamy Gounder as the sole surviving coparcener. Ramanna Gounder's widow Devathal died about a year after his death and not in 1965 as alleged by the plaintiff. Any right will vest in the daughters only as coparceners and the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 will have only prospective operation and consequently, none of the daughters would be entitled to any share in the suit properties. While the properties were in the hands of Rangasamy Gounder, his son Gopalsamy is entitled to share as coparcener. On 05.09.1988, Rangasamy, his children Gopalsamy and the third defendant partitioned the properties by registered Partition Deed. Some of the particulars given in the suit notice were wrong and they were corrected in the plaint only based on the particulars provided in the reply notice. The plaintiff's mother and her sisters never claimed any right over the suit properties and were never in joint possession. The plaintiff's mother lost her right by ouster and adverse possession. There is no cause of action for filing the suit. The third defendant's written statement is similar to that of the defendants 1 and 2. The defendants 1 to 3 prayed for dismissal of the suit.