N SAVITHRI Vs. MANONMANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs whose suit for declaration and recovery of possession was dismissed are the appellants. The 1st plaintiff Natesan, the husband of the 2nd plaintiff and the father of the plaintiffs 3 to 6 died pending suit and the plaintiffs 2 to 6 were recorded as his legal representative.

(2.) According to the plaintiffs, the suit properties belonged to one Thirumenipillai and Govindasamy Pillai. In a partition that took place on 05.10.1926, the brothers were allotted 55 Kuzhies of land each. While Thirumenipillai had three sons namely, Natesan, Packirisamy and Ramaiyan, Govindasamy died issue less. The widow of Govindasamy namely, Govindammal @ Gangai Ammal settled an extent of 55 cents allotted to Govindasamy in the partition deed dated 05.10.1926, in favour of Natesan and Ramaiyan. The respondents 1 to 3 in the appeal who were defendants 1 to 3 in the suit, are the wife and children of Ramaiyan. Respondents 4 to 6 who were the defendants 4 to 6 in the suit, are the wife and children of Packirisamy. Respondents 7 and 8, who were defendants 7 and 8 in the suit,neighbouring land owners are the actual contesting respondents.

(3.) According to the plaintiff, the property described in schedule-B to the plaint, is the property that was allotted to Govindasamy, which is the subject matter of the settlement by the Govindammal @ Gangai Ammal on 09.01.1975. Therefore, B-schedule property belonged to plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 3 (Appellants and respondents 1 to 3). The C-schedule property that was allotted to Thirumenipillai devolved on his three sons namely, Natesan, Packirisamy and Ramaiyan. Therefore, the plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 6 (appellants and respondents 1 to 6) would be entitled to C-schedule property.