VENKATASAMY Vs. ANNAMALAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff and the first defendant are sons of Venga Gounder. According to the plaintiff, the suit property was allotted to his share in the oral partition between the family members 40 years back. The plaintiff is, in open, uninterrupted possession and enjoyment of the property paying necessary kist. While so, when he leased out the suit property to one Anbu Gounder, the first defendant in collusion with his neighbour the second defendant disturbing the peaceful possession and preventing his leasee from putting up a thatched superstructure. Hence, suit for declaration and injunction.

(2.) Per contra, the defendant contended that no partition has effected in respect of the properties of Venga gounder. Till date, the properties are jointly enjoyed by the plaintiff and the first defendant. The properties are ancestral properties in which, the first defendant is a co-sharer. The plaintiff never been in exclusive possession or enjoyment. Venga Gounder died intestate leaving behind two sons, who are the plaintiff and the first defendant. All the properties are ancestral in nature and inheritance shall be in accordance with Act 30/1956. The suit property was purchased by Venga Gounder on 15.05.1957 from the surplus income derived out of the ancestral nucleus and blended into the hotchpot of the ancestral properties. As manager of the joint family, the plaintiff is paying kist in his name in his capacity as Kartha of the family. The suit is liable to be dismissed, since there is no cause of action to file the suit and the suit as framed is defective and relief claimed is misconceived.

(3.) The trial Court framed the following issues: