DURAISAMY PILLAI AND ORS. Vs. MANNAMMAL AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the defendants 5, 6, 8, 9 and 10 is directed as against the common judgment and decree passed in I.A.No. 91 of 1987 and A.S.No. 191 of 1986 on the file of Principal District Court, Vellore on 18.8.1987 setting aside the judgment and decree dated 30.9.1985 in the suit in O.S.No. 66 of 1982 on the file of Sub Court at Tiruvannamalai.

(2.) The short facts which are necessary for the disposal of the appeal are as follows: The suit properties described in the A schedule are the self -acquired properties of one Duraiswami Pillai. The defendants 1 and 2 in the suit are the undivided sons of Duraiswami Pillai. The first plaintiff in the suit is the wife of the said Duraiswami Pillai. The 2nd plaintiff and the 4th defendant are the daughters of Duraiswami Pillai. The original owner Duraiswami Pillai died on 31.5.1962 leaving the plaintiffs and defendants 1, 2 and 4 to succeed to his properties. The 3rd defendant is the wife of the 2nd defendant. The plaintiffs and the defendants 1, 2 and 4 have been in joint possession and enjoyment of the plaint A schedule properties after the death of Duraiswami Pillai. The defendants 5 to 10 have purchased items 5 to 16 of the plaint A Schedule properties from the defendants 1 and 2 who are the sons of the deceased Duraiswami Pillai. The said alienations are not valid under law and they would not affect the right title and interest of the plaintiffs in the plaint A schedule properties. The defendants 1 and 2 have also executed sham and nominal settlement deeds in favour of the defendants 3 and 4 in respect of items 1 to 4. The said settlement deeds are void in law and they are not binding on the plaintiffs. Hence, the suit.

(3.) The suit claim is resisted by the defendants by filing separate written statements. The contentions raised by them are briefly stated as follows: The suit properties are not the self -acquired properties of Duraiswami Pillai. They are the joint family properties of Duraiswami Pillai. Even during the life time of Duraiswami Pillai there had been a partition between him and his sons. At any rate some of the defendants have purchased some of the items of the suit properties bona fide for value. Hence the suit for partition deserves dismissal with costs.