ARUMUGA UDAYAR Vs. SWAMIYAR ALIAS RAMASAMY UDAYAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Letters Patent Appeal is preferred against the judgment dated 29. 9. 1988 passed by the learned single Judge in A. S. No. 1182 of 1980 confirming the Judgment and decree passed by the Sub Court, Tiruvannamalai in O. S. No. 117 of 1977 on 8. 5. 1980. The said suit was filed by the appellant herein for partition and separate possession of his share in the suit scheduled properties on the ground that the suit properties are the joint family properties and he, being one of the co-parceners, is entitled to l/4th share. The defendants contended that the plaintiff was not entitled to any share as in a family arrangement, he had been given lands equivalent to his share and in addition to that a sum of Rs. 10,000 and a house had been given to him.

(2.) THE trial Court, on the basis of the Pleadings of the parties, raised the following issues:- " 1. Whether the B and C Schedule properties are joint family properties" 2. Whether the properties purchased by the 1st defendant were purchased out of the surplus income from the family properties" 3. Whether the will executed by Annamalai Udayar is true and valid" 4. Whether items 1 to 4, 20 and 32 are the separate properties of 1st defendant" 5. Whether the settlement deed dated 2. 1. 1967 is true and valid" 6. Whether the present suit is maintainable" 7. To what relief" Additional issue framed on 8. 5. 1980:-Whether the prior partition alleged is true"" It answered all the issues against the plaintiff and specifically found that the plaintiff in addition to the allotment of 3. 41 acres of dry land and 2. 75 acres of wet land, a sum of Rs. 10,000 was also given by way of family arrangement and a house was also purchased in his name. THE trial court found that such an arrangement was not unfair and accordingly dismissed the suit with costs.

(3.) THEREFORE,, we are of the view that the finding recorded by the learned single Judge that there has been clear and proper family arrangement as such, the appellant is not entitled to claim partition ignoring the family arrangement is well founded. As such, it does not require interference. We, accordingly, confirm the judgment of the leaned single Judge and dismiss the appeal. However, we pass no order as to costs.