PALANIAPPAN Vs. MAHALAKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first defendant in the suit in O.S.No.139 of 1992 on the file of the Sub Court, Tiruchirappalli, is the appellant in the above appeal. The respondents 1 and 2 in this appeal, as plaintiffs filed a suit in O.S.No.139 of 1992 for partition and separate possession of their 2/4 shares in all the suit properties. The suit is also for past and future mesne profit.

(2.) The plaintiffs filed a suit on the ground that they are the children of third defendant born out of third defendant's long co-habitation with one K.R.Thangam Chettiar and that the defendants 1 and 2 are also the children of K.R.Thangam Chettiar through the third defendant. The suit properties are claimed to be the properties of plaintiffs' father one K.R.Thangam Chettiar. It is peculiar in this case that the plaintiffs themselves claimed that the third defendant was not married to K.R.Thangam Chettiar due to certain legal complications that arose because of her earlier marriage and contended that the third defendant was only living with K.R.Thangam Chettiar and that the plaintiffs and the defendants 1 and 2 are the illegitimate children.

(3.) According to the plaintiffs, the said K.R.Thangam Chettiar was running a welding industry and that after the death of their father, the plaintiffs were carrying on the welding works business. The plaintiffs therefore claimed that they are the legal heirs of the deceased K.R.Thangam Chettiar and that they are entitled to share the suit properties along with defendants 1 and 2. Since the third defendant was described not as a wife but as a woman living with the said K.R.Thangam Chettiar, they have not reserved any right in favour of the third defendant. The fourth defendant is a purchaser of one of the items from defendants 1 and 3. Since the sale deed executed by the defendants 1 and 3 in favour of the fourth defendant is not binding on the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs ignored the sale deed.