LAWS(MAD)-2008-4-63

SARADHAMBAL Vs. KASIAMMAL

Decided On April 09, 2008
SARADHAMBAL Appellant
V/S
KASIAMMAL AND OTHERS Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and preliminary decree dated 07.02.1997 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Tirupattur, North Arcot District (now Vellore District) in O.S.No.243 of 1991. The respondents 1 and 2 in the present appeal were the plaintiffs. The appellant herein was the first defendant and the third respondent herein was the second defendant in the original suit.

(2.) THE respondents 1 and 2 herein filed the above said suit for partition in respect of the suit properties, both movable and immovable, described in the schedule attached to the plaint as items 1 to 17. Items 1 to 14 are immovable properties whereas items 15 to 17 are cattles. According to the plaint allegations, all the suit properties were the ancestral properties of one Chinnappa Moopar who died intestate in or about 1982. He and his son Shanmugam Moopar were coparceners entitled to equal moieties in the suit properties. On the death of Chinnappa Moopar, his half share devolved upon his son Shanmugam Moopar, daughters Kasiammal and Kanagammal (the plaintiffs in the suit) and his wife Chinnakannammal equally. As such, each one of the plaintiffs and the said Chinnakannammal became entitled to 1/8 share. In all Shanmugam Moopar was entitled to 5/8 share (" share as coparcener and 1/8 as the legal heir of Chinnappa Moopar). THE above said Shanmugam Moopar predeceased Chinnakannammal. On his death, his wife Saradammal and mother Chinnakannammal became entitled to his property in equal moieties. As such, the 5/8 share of Shanmugam Moopar was to be shared equally between Chinnakannammal and Saradambal. Each one of them got 5/16 share in the suit properties as a legal heir of Shanmugam Moopar. In all Chinnakannammal W/o.Chinnappa Moopar became entitled to 7/16 share. On her death in 1990, the same devolved upon her daughters Kasiammal and Kanagammal, the plaintiffs. Thus each one of the plaintiffs, in all, became entitled to 11/32 share in the suit properties. THE remaining 10/32 share would go to the first defendant Saradambal. As an extent of 1.48.0 hectares comprised in Survey No.66/5 and an extent of 0.06.0 hectares comprised in Survey No.66/6 described as items 3 and 4 in the plaint schedule were purchased by the second defendant Neelakanda Moopar from the first defendant without the consent of the plaintiffs in and by a sale deed dated 04.03.1991, there arose a necessity for the plaintiffs to claim partition. As the defendants were not prepared for a peaceful partition without the intervention of the court, the plaintiffs were constrained to file the suit for the reliefs of partition, separate possession and mesne profits.

(3.) WITH the said averments found in the written statement she had prayed for the dismissal of the suit with exemplary cost. The second defendant also contested the suit by filing a separate written statement containing similar averments.