P NAGAPPAN Vs. P SUBBARAYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFF in O.S. No.68 of 1987 on the file of Sub Court, Nagapattinam, is the appellant.

(2.) THE suit filed by him was one for partition claiming one-third share in the plaint items. THE material averments, which are necessary for the proper disposal of the second appeal, could be summarised as follows.

(3.) IT is the case of the plaintiff that the 1st defendant is a graduate teacher, decently employed and the plaintiff is conductor in Tiruvalluvar Transport Corporation. The third son, who is not a party to the suit, was looking after the cultivation, but he went to bad habits and was demanding a partition. He took to violence and therefore, he came for a settlement. They decided to give him his share. The allegation is that trouble made by the third son went to that extent that mediators had to intervene for bringing peace among the family members. The 1st defendant also took initiative, being the eldest son and due to his efforts, he could convince his youngest brother. The parties agreed for allotting him his share on the undertaking that he must execute a release deed in respect of remaining properties. As the stamp duty was heavy, it was agreed that a deed of partition be executed amongst themselves. At that time, it was decided to dispose of the ancestral house and punja lands. At that time. Packirisami was keeping indifferent health. IT was also agreed that if any new property is acquired from out of the sale proceeds, it should also go to all the persons. On that understanding, a deed of partition was executed on 19.3.1980. IT is said that on executing the partition deed, the trouble shooter that is the third son went out of the family. The family house was sold at a very high price, as also the nanja land in the name of Packirisami and the properties in the name of the 2nd defendant mother, was also alienated. The amounts so realised from out of those transactions, were utilised for the purchase of new properties and a portion of it was kept in safe custody with the 1st defendant some amounts were utilised for discharging certain antecedent debts and also for the purchase of certain jewellery to the 2nd defendant.