AMSAVALLI Vs. INDIRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEFENDANTS 1 to 4 and 6 in O.S. No. 207 of 1986, on the file of Subordinate Judge's Court, Nagappattinam, are the appellants before this Court.

(2.) MATERIAL averments in the plaint may be stated as follows:- Plaintiff and 5th defendant are the daughter and son of late Pakkirisami Pillai through his second wife Lakshmi. First defendant is his first wife and defendants 2 to 4 are the daughter and sons respectively of late Pakkirisami Pillai through his first wife. Plaintiff being the daughter and defendants 1 to 5 being the wife and children of late Pakkirisami Pillai, are his heirs, entitled to succeed to his properties. Pakkirisami Pillai died on 5-10-1983, his self-acquired properties are detailed in plain t Schedules "A" to "F". Pakkirisami Pillai was a shrewd and enterprising gentleman, earning large income in the Isles and in India. He purchased the suit properties out of his own funds and constructed buildings with his funds. He purchased properties in his name, in the name of his first wife (1st defendant), mother, sister-in-law and his son (4th defendant). Regarding B Schedule items, the same were purchased in the name of his first wife, "C" Schedule properties were purchased in his own name, though the patta stands in the name of his son (3rd defendant). "D" and "E" Schedule properties were purchased by Pakkirisami Pillai in the name of his mother. "F" Schedule property was purchased in the name of 5th defendant. 5th defendant had no status to acquire the property, and till his death, the acquire Pakkirisami Pillai was in possession of that property. 5th defendant never claimed any ownership over the same, and the deceased was taking the income therefrom. After the death of Pakkirisami, the 3rd defendant is receiving a rental income of Rs. 350/- each from F Schedule Items 2(a), (b), and (c). A lawyer's notice was issued by plaintiff, for which a reply has been sent that plaintiff is not the daughter of late Pakkirisami Pillai, and that she was the daughter of one Thangavelu. It is averred in the plaint that such a statement is nothing but defamatory.

(3.) A reply was also filed by plaintiff, reiterating the plaint allegations, and also claiming partition.